Kevin DeGraaf’s Blog

The righty-tighties are up in arms over Planned Parenthood’s tax-exempt status:

A Minnesota conservative is calling for an end to the tax-exempt status and public financing of the country’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. According to Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report, the organization received more than $1 billion from revenues — nearly one-third of that figure came from “government grants and contracts.”

“Planned Parenthood brings in over a billion dollars in revenues, pays no taxes, and sits at the end of the year fat and happy with $115 million in the bank and brazenly works to go after affluent women rather than helping out poor women [...]“, said Bachmann.

Bachmann was one of several Republican lawmakers who denounced the abortion provider during a recent one-hour pro-life Special Order on the House floor called by Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey). “We didn’t have one Democrat come to the floor and call on Planned Parenthood to either live up to their non-profit status or renounce that status, be truthful with the American people, and start paying taxes and not be eligible for any more taxpayer subsidies,” she argues. “As a matter of fact, in Houston, Planned Parenthood announced that they will be building a 75,000-square-foot building. How could that be possible — a 75,000-square-foot building?” Bachmann questions.

She states that, as a former tax lawyer, it has become clear to her that Planned Parenthood no longer fits the mold of a 501(c)3 non-profit and should be paying taxes. And Bachmann questions whether Planned Parenthood really uses public funds to help its efforts for “voter identification and community education” on family-planning issues.

To sum up, a Christian conservative is complaining that Planned Parenthood:

• Receives hundreds of millions of dollars in “government grants and contracts”.
• Brings in billions of dollars, pays no taxes, and sits “fat and happy” with cash in the bank.
• Utilizes large buildings.
• Is not held to its 501(c)(3) obligations.
• Is given a free pass by a major political party.
• Should start paying taxes on its donations and property.

Does that remind you of anything? How about, say, Christianity, which:

• Receives billions of dollars in government grants and contracts.
• Brings in billions of dollars, pays no taxes, and sits “fat and happy” with cash in the bank.
• Utilizes large buildings.
• Is not held to its 501(c)(3) obligations.
• Is given a free pass by a major political party.
• Should start paying taxes on its donations and property.

(When a Republican Senator dared to break ranks and investigate the activities of some ludicrously wealthy tax-exempt “ministries”, the Radical Right chose to retaliate instead of comply. How Christian of them.)

I’m willing to have a reasonable discussion about the role that Planned Parenthood should have in our society, especially concerning public funding, but the Radical Right should attend to the plank in its eye before whining gratuitously about specks elsewhere, mmmkay?

Here’s my comment on Crackergate (background, fight, fight, fight, whine, blah, whine, blah, blah, blah, whine, blah, blah, blah, whine, conclusion):

I applaud PZ’s actions. He has taken a lot of flack over this, even from within the freethought community. I want to make my stance perfectly clear: sending death threats over the alleged mistreatment of a magic voodoo cracker is insane… “words fail me” insane. Intentionally disrespecting this retarded belief is exactly the right thing to do.

Richard Dawkins wrote The Emptiness of Theology back in 1993.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. [...] If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? [...] The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

(Emphasis mine.)

Even though I’ve long since rejected theistic faith and religion, I still receive The Banner, the magazine of the Christian Reformed Church denomination (because my former church hasn’t gotten around to purging my name from its membership list).

In last month’s issue, the “humor” page contained a horrifying “joke”:

When we called to talk with our grandchildren, Kimeisha was pouting. “Don’t feel sorry for her,” said her mother. “She just punched her brother in the stomach.” So I changed the subject and asked Kimeisha what she had learned in Sunday school that day. She began to tell me the story of Noah and how all the bad people died in the flood. Suddenly she said, “Just a minute, Grandma, I have to go tell my brother I’m sorry.”

This is funny?!?

Think about this for a second. A credulous child was brainwashed into believing that there is a vengeful deity who threw a temper tantrum and, in a single act of gratuitous violence, wiped out the Earth’s population (save one family), and as as result, lives in fear of a similar fate befalling her.

If a human parent threatened his/her child with death for being disobedient, causing that child to live in fear of such a punishment, any rational person would call that child abuse. How is teaching the flood story any different? Even if we grant that the rainbow promise negates the implicit threat, that obviously didn’t make much of an impression on this child — which, of course, was the desired outcome.

This is sickening enough on its own, but presented as humor, it’s downright repulsive. Of course, this isn’t surprising given that the same religion teaches that outsiders will be tortured forever…

This is a response to Answer Bearer’s post entitled “Moral Framework“, which is a response to Lisa’s post entitled “Unmuddling Morality“.

• If there is a moral law, then there is a Moral Law Giver.
• There is a moral law
• Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver

I agree with the logical structure and with premise #2. I disagree with premise #1 and, therefore, the conclusion. But first, let’s address the concept of subjective vs. objective morality.

There is a difference between agreement on specifics of right and wrong and a basic understanding that there is right and wrong. The specifics can be subjective at times; however, the framework is objective.

Agreed.

If morality was subjective to a culture or a person, one could say that the English slave trade or the American slavery was not wrong to those who didn’t believe it to be wrong. However, I think the reality is that it was always wrong even when people justified it to be right. Also, just because a community justifies something to be right, doesn’t mean deep in their souls they know it to be right.

Agreed.

If morality is subjective then we have no right to judge another culture or community for doing atrocities to people such as the holocaust. However, if it is objective and all people really do know right from wrong somehow then the Nuremburg Trials were warranted.

Agreed.

In my opinion, you have been arguing against a straw man. You seem to be assuming that, because we reject belief in a deity, we also reject the concept of universal, objective morality, or that if we do accept the idea of objective morality, we have no basis on which to do so. These are common (and tiresome) theist canards.

While it is certainly possible to be an atheist and reject the concept of objective morality (since atheism is simply a position on a single issue and is not, in and of itself, a philosophy or a worldview), most atheists, in my experience, subscribe to the framework of secular humanism to some degree or another and therefore tend to view morality as something that is objective and the product of logical reasoning. Lisa and I wholeheartedly embrace this position.

Given that we’re all in agreement that morality is not subjective or culturally-relative, let’s proceed.

The second part of the syllogism proclaims God must exist because there is a moral framework. How else could a standard of morality exist in humanity if it were not for a conscious designer placing it there? The objective nature of a moral standard that man kind experiences guilt when he breaks it and demands justice when it is broken against him is not explained by evolution.

Allow me to quote from the always-excellent Adam Marczyk: “[Atheism] can accommodate both the existence of a moral law and the manifest fact that not every culture or individual is aware of it. The explanation is straightforward: morality is not something implanted in every person’s heart by a creator, but something derived from careful deliberation and a rational understanding of our place in the world and our relationships to each other.”

In other words, morality, which is objective, is discovered through careful reasoning, not by reading a primitive book or appealing to a magical sky fairy. Our evolved brains are more than capable of taking stock of situations, weighing the pros and cons of various courses of action, and anticipating (and empathizing with) the feelings of others.

Further commentary on this “Mere Christianity” argument can be found here. Further commentary on non-theistic morality is available here. Lisa linked to these essays in her post; I would strongly urge you to read them in their entireties before replying.

Again that is why I maintain that non-Christians must borrow from the Christian worldview regarding these things to even posit questions about good and evil and how to differentiate between the two. It’s the only worldview that gives a good explanation about how this all works and is the most viable in corresponding to reality.

As I’ve shown, this is false. The godless explanations I’ve presented are far more parsimonious and logically satisfying than the nebulous supernatural dreck proposed by theists of all stripes.

Regarding the Bible condoning slavery, it does not. Jesus didn’t come to force political change; that was not His mission. He knew that the heart change that happens from knowing Him would change the world and force would never produce love which was what was needed to treat people the way He designed them to be treated

Did you miss Lisa’s list of Biblical passages that condone slavery? Would you care to address them directly?

Yet another child has died of religious stupidity:

Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

An autopsy Wednesday showed that Beagley died of heart failure caused by a urinary tract blockage.

He probably had a congenital condition that constricted his urinary tract where the bladder empties into the urethra, and the condition of his organs indicates that he had multiple blockages during his life, said Dr. Clifford Nelson, deputy state medical examiner for Clackamas County.

“You just build up so much urea in your bloodstream that it begins to poison your organs, and the heart is particularly susceptible,” Nelson said.

Nelson said a catheter would have saved the boy’s life. If the condition had been dealt with earlier, a urologist could easily have removed the blockage and avoided the kidney damage that came with the repeated illnesses, Nelson said.

Benton said a board member of the Followers of Christ church contacted the authorities after Beagley died at his family’s home. The teen had been sick about a week, and church members and his family had gathered to pray Sunday when his condition worsened, Benton said.

The group of sociopaths responsible for his death also killed his 15-month-old cousin, Ava Worthington, back in March.  Fortunately, it looks like Oregon’s legislature is taking steps to force religious parents to seek medical assistance for sick children instead of merely praying over them.

I know that moderate Christians join me in recoiling in horror at this “faith-based healing” nonsense (and insist that I’m attacking a strawman, not their actual worldview).  However, what they need to realize, and soon, is that their “moderate” acceptance of Bronze Age mythology enables these raging lunatics.  The adherents of this dangerous cult would have their children forcibly rescued in a heartbeat if it weren’t for the fact that religion is so revered, so respected, so untouchable in our culture.

Those of you who avail yourselves of medical care while simultaenously praying for God’s intervention, babbling uselessly into the sky while insisting that the work of human doctors and human medical researchers is somehow a manifestation of divine providence, give ideological shelter to those who believe in the literal healing power of prayer.  Death ensues: not symbolic death, not figurative death, not “moderate” death — real death.  Real children are violently and painfully robbed of life because their faith-addled parents deny them care, or convince them (this case was about a 16-year-old) to reject care.

Only the steady march of rationalism can solve this problem.  I fervently hope that, within my lifetime, it shall.

Lisa has started a new blog: Godless Woman. Check it out!

In contrast to her old blog, which was more general in nature, Godless Woman is specifically atheism-related.

I don’t feel like writing much about Expelled, the creationist “documentary” that opens in theaters on Friday, other than to link to NCSE’s rebuttal site, Expelled Exposed.

The gist of the movie is that Big Science (TM) is engaged in a conspiracy to cover up all Intelligent Design (creationism) research and blacklist anyone who disputes the “dogma” of “Darwinism”; furthermore, evolution is responsible for eugenics, moral decay, the Holocaust, etc. It’s the same malodorous excrement that the anti-science crowd has been pushing for decades.

Blah, blah, blah.

Austin Cline has posted an excellent article about the myth of atheistic intolerance, and that has led me to think about my own position on the matter. I have been accused on many occasions of being too harsh, too dismissive, and/or too mocking toward religion. One such complainant explicitly denounced my position as being that of “fundamentalist” atheism (an appellation which is self-evidently logically incoherent). Other correspondents have urged me to be less disrespectful toward their blind-faith positions.

While I have tried to direct my reproachful critique toward theism itself, rather than at individual theists (”you have a silly belief” vs. “you are a silly person”), my experience has been that religious adherents, whose very identity is linked almost inextricably to their faith, seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize that distinction.

Christianity occupies a position of power in this country, and that fact has given rise to a widespread popular consensus that Christianity should enjoy an exemption from scrutiny. Any criticism of its doctrine, any suggestion that it might be inconsistent with reality, any idea which threatens to displace “faith” from its privileged position as the defining characteristic of one’s entire worldview — these and other insinuations are virtually guaranteed to cause an immediate, swift defensive reaction. I’m intolerant, I’m disrespectful, I’m closed-minded, I’m hateful, I’m an evil fundy. The list goes on and on, and the common theme is that I should just shut up and stop criticizing religion.

Hell, no.

I will not refrain from calling religion exactly what it is: medieval, superstitious, incoherent nonsense, incompatible with reality, dreamed up by scared human beings seeking explanation and comfort, encouraged by opportunistic humans seeking to control others, and used in furtherance of all manner of evil ends (opposing science, oppressing women and gays, causing holy wars, promoting in-group/out-group divisions, killing defenseless children, cheating the gullible, and scaring people into compliance through the grotesque absurdity that is the doctrine of hell, to name just a few examples).

I do not, will not, and indeed cannot show any deference toward a belief system that seeks to undermine reason itself to make room for the acceptance of unprovable and, in many cases, downright ludicrous propositions.

You Christians know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all other religions are full of crap. You know that Islam and Mormonism and Hinduism and all the others are complete nonsense because (1) your own doctrines say so, and (2) your rational mind is free to come to that obvious conclusion because it is not blinded by any Muslim or Mormon or Hindu dogma.

What you need to realize is that Christianity is no different. Burning bushes and wine-conjuring, donkey-stealing, fig-tree-smiting, virgin-impregnating superheroes are no more rational than flying horses and magical golden plates.  Religion is both utterly absurd and ominously dangerous, and those of us who recognize this owe your ideology no deference whatsoever.

I was hit hard by the flu this week. I spent Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday stuck at home, hanging on for dear life as my body took radical steps to rid itself of these wonderful little guests. Many of my extended family members have had the flu recently, and as one of them aptly put it, “you want to DIE but can’t!”. I was able to return to work today and confront the mountain of tasks that had piled up, but if past illnesses are any guide, I won’t be at 100% for another week or so.

I thought it would be fitting to use part of my illness-induced downtime to start reading a new book: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins (yes, that Dawkins).

Can any cdesign proponentsists explain to me why any intelligent engineer would create bodies that are vulnerable to viruses, or that defend against them in such grotesque ways as vomiting, diarrhea, fever and malaise (preferably without any cop-outs that involve talking snakes and naked ladies)?

Also, today being “Good” Friday, I would like to bring to your attention this post at The Learned Pig.  Excerpt:

What’s so “good” about a Friday that commemorates someone being nailed to a piece of wood and left to die?