I have landed. . .

April 20, 2016 • 4:00 pm

. . . in Portland that is, where I’m in the capable hands of philosopher Peter Boghossian at Portland State University, host for half of my visit. We’ve already dined at one of the famous “food trucks” (stalls, really) that fill this food-loving city, and had a great Thai lunch. The evidence is below.

Portland is, as always, lovely, and it’s sunny today: the city is experiencing what the locals call a “heat wave,” in which everyone suffers greatly when temperatures climb into the 80s (Fahrenheit!), but it’s not bad at all.  It’s a city of food, craft beer, legal marijuana, and fantastic surroundings, and I’ll do my best to have fun until I return to Chicago Sunday afternoon.

Over lunch I learned about Peter’s new app, which is out in some places. It’s apparently designed to help nonbelievers rebut every possible argument for religion and superstition, and I’ll give more details when it’s released in the U.S.

We also had an animated discussion about whether moral values can be objective. Peter says “yes” (as, of course, does Sam Harris), but I disagree, though I’m willing to be convinced. I asked Peter to tell me the objective answer to these questions: “How many monkey lives is it worth taking to develop a vaccine that will protect 100,000 humans? How about if it were rats?”

I argue that judging the “well being” of animals is something that we’ll almost certainly never be able to do for most species, as it depends on their degree of consciousness and whether they feel pain and pleasure as qualia.  So how do we objectively answer such questions, or those involving any such tradeoffs, even if we do take “well being” as the currency of moral value?

Discussion to be continued. Meanwhile, here’s Peter and his teaching assistant Christine in front of the row of food trucks we visited:

IMG_0986

Animation: Titanic sinks in real time

April 20, 2016 • 1:00 pm

So here’s a video, produced by the group Titanic: Honor and Glory, showing how the Titanic sank—in real time. That means that it’s 2 hours and 40 minutes long. It also doesn’t show any people, probably out of a misguided fear of looking gruesome. (If you want to see people die, watch the 1997 movie Titanic). At any rate, it’s fascinating, though if you’re like me you’ll just watch the first bit, when the ship hits the iceberg, and the last bit, when it breaks up and goes under:

Iranian woman elected to her parliament not seated because she shook hands with an unrelated man

April 20, 2016 • 12:00 pm

Just a quick note as I’m about to board the plane for Portland. As the Guardian reports, Minoo Khaleghi, a newly-elected member of Iran’s parliament, has been refused seating in the legislature because—horrors!—she’s reported to have shaken hands with an unrelated man, and on a trip to China. But apparently there’s no proof she did this, just unconfirmed reports, and Khaleghi denies that it happened. Regardless, she still can’t be seated:

Khaleghi was elected in February as a new member of the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, from the constituency of Isfahan, the country’s top tourist destination.

She had been qualified to run, meaning that the powerful guardian council, which vets all candidates, had approved her candidacy. But the controversial body of clerics and jurists has changed its mind, nullifying her votes even though election officials endorsed the results in Isfahan and found no major discrepancy in the counting process.

. . . Shaking the hand of an unrelated person of the opposite sex is illegal under Iran’s Islamic law, and a number of high-profile politicians and artists, including the Oscar-winning film director Asghar Farhadi, have fallen foul of it.

Khaleghi, shown below, is one of 14 women elected to the 290-person legislature in February, though that number is expected to rise with a new round of elections in the offing.

Actually, I’m surprised that any women are allowed to join the Iranian legislature. Given that, it’s bizarre that they can be unseated by merely shaking hands with an unrelated man. That’s because of Islam, of course, but I suppose apologists like Karen Armstrong and Reza Aslan can somehow pin it on something else.

And one more harangue:  those liberal organizations who endorse Muslim groups that support this kind of misogyny—including Britain’s student unions and many feminist and LGBT groups—are not only reprehensible, but hypocritical. Their identity politics have led them to place sexist bigotry, in the guise of “opposing oppression”, over individual rights. In reality, they’re favoring oppression.

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 7.35.30 AM

Tennessee governor vetoes bill making the Bible the Official State Book

April 20, 2016 • 10:45 am

More good news from Tennessee! The news is nearly a week old, but is worth reporting since on April 5 I noted that the Tennessee senate had voted 19-8 to make the Bible the Official State Book, sending that bill for signature to governor Bill Haslam. But last Thursday Haslam, a Republican, vetoed the bill.  The Washington Post reports:

“In addition to the constitutional issues with the bill, my personal feeling is that this bill trivializes the Bible, which I believe is a sacred text,” Haslam (R) wrote in a letter to the speaker of the statehouse.

“If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn’t be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance,” continued Haslam. “If we are recognizing the Bible as a sacred text, then we are violating the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee by designating it as the official state book.”

Well, that sounds a bit like making a virtue of necessity, but I’ll take what I can get!

And, thanks to reader Phil, I saw this cartoon, titled “Thankfully,” by liberal op-ed artist Clay Bennett in the Times Free Press of Chattanooga (Tennessee). Bennett won a Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning, and this shows why:

160416thankfully1563454293_t755_hd5e2b94d7de9e9c227cee1601dc1723c763c6229

Isn’t that nice?

Tennessee legislature repeals religious defense for parents who hurt their children by withholding medical care

April 20, 2016 • 9:45 am

We have two pieces of good news today from the American South—both from Tennessee. One refers to the subject of reports in The Tennesseean and the Knoxville News Sentinel: the Tennessee legislature has repealed a state law that gives parents exemptions from hurting their children by withholding medical care in favor of faith healing. As do many states, Tennessee has such an exemption on the books, though it’s a felony crime to hurt your kids if you don’t have a religious motivation. As The Tennessean reported previously,

It is a crime in Tennessee to fail to provide medical care to children, with an exception, known as the Spiritual Treatment Exemption Act, for parents who want to rely on “spiritual means through prayer alone,” according to state code. State Sen. Richard Briggs, R-Knoxville, filed SB 1761 to repeal the exception.

The current code reads: “Nothing in this part shall be construed to mean a child is abused, neglected, or endangered, or abused, neglected or endangered in an aggravated manner, for the sole reason the child is being provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone, in accordance with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner of the recognized church or religious denomination, in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.”

The bill applies to treatments and does not apply to vaccinations, although that may come up in the course of debate, Briggs said.

A Republican! How unexpected!

These laws are not uncommon. They were originally put in place by the states in 1974 as a result of a new federal policy mandating that states would not receive government money to prevent child abuse unless they also enacted laws allowing these religious exemptions. That was unconscionable and, in fact, the requirement was rescinded in 1983. But in many states the laws remained on the books. As a result, many children died, and still die, from religiously-based medical neglect; and their parents are either let off the hook or given only a slap on the wrist. As always, as with vaccination—47 of the 50 states allow religious exemption from getting children vaccinated before attending public school—religion gets an exemption that endangers people’s lives.

The exemption laws were buttressed in 1983. As the estimable organization Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty (CHILD) notes,

In 1996, however, Congress enacted a law stating that the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) did not include “a Federal requirement that a parent or guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or guardian.” [42 USC 5106i] Furthermore, Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana, and Congressman Bill Goodling, R-Pennsylvania, claimed during floor discussion that parents have a First Amendment right to withhold medical care from children.

Unbelievable! And Bill Clinton signed that law! But the results stand: in most places if you injure or kill your child because you deem conventional medical care contrary to your religion, you don’t get punished. As I noted in my Slate piece a year ago, “Faith healing kills children,”

Forty-eight states—all except West Virginia and Mississippi—allow religious exemptions from vaccination. (California would be the third exception if its bill becomes law.) A similar deference to religion applies to all medical care for children. As the National District Attorneys Association reports [JAC: link no longer works, and I can’t find the document, so go here], 43 states give some kind of criminal or civil immunity to parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds.

Well, make that 42 now, for six days ago the Tennessee House concurred with the state Senate in repealing the noxious Spiritual Treatment Exemption Act. As the News Sentinel reports:

The repeal bill, Senate Bill 1761, is sponsored by Sen. Richard Briggs, R-Knoxville, a cardiac surgeon, and Rep. Andrew Farmer, R-Sevierville, a lawyer. It won unanimous Senate approval in March and an 85-1 vote Thursday in the House and now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam, who’s expected to sign it into law.

. . . Briggs and Farmer introduced the bill this year in an attempt to repeal the exemption. Briggs cited his experience with a similar case years ago, when he was a general surgeon in another state and a teen boy was brought to see him with a ruptured appendix. His parents initially opposed surgery on religious grounds but later agreed to treatment.

The bill was backed by a Kentucky-based group, Children’s Healthcare Is Legal Duty (CHILD), that works for repeal of similar spiritual treatment exemptions across the country. Its President Rita Swan issued a statement thanking lawmakers for repealing the exemption in Tennessee.

Rita Swan is a hero, and has been recognized as such by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (they also filed a brief in the Tennessee case), which gave Swan its Lifetime Achievement Award. Swan and her husband, once Christian Scientists, let their son Matthew die of meningitis in 1977 because they were obeying the no-doctors tenet of their faith. Since then, Swan, horrified at what she did, founded CHILD and has worked tirelessly to get these religious laws overturned. But progress is slow.

I’m hoping now that a Southern state has removed its medical-exemption laws (or will when the governor signs the bill, as he surely will), other states will follow suit. It’s absolutely unbelievable that over 80% of American states allow parents to injure their children—children too young to enact their own decisions—by favoring religious healing over treatment that works. To me, this is one of the most noxious and injurious results of America’s privileging of religion. It kills people! Can any person, even a Regressive liberal, be in favor of those laws?

If you’re an American, it’s likely that your state has such exemptions (see the CHILD list to check). Do what you can to repeal them, and, if you can, donate money to CHILD, which is fighting the good fight.

And now—on to vaccination.!

Here are the states with religious exemptions (from CHILD); click to enlarge:

us-map-exemptions1-1024x542

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ lagniappe (and a digression)

April 20, 2016 • 8:30 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “sitcom,” came with this note from the author:

Is Mo pretending to be stupid? I have no idea.

This one was inspired by British MP Rupa Huq’s complaint about a popular sitcom called Citizen Khan.

The link goes to an Express & Star piece on the show, and Rupa Huq deems it Islamophobic, even comparing it to the child sex abuse crimes of Jimmy Savile that, she says, were “excused”.

Huq:

“I feel if I didn’t know what the year is… you would think it’s an every day tale of a Birmingham family of Muslims but they’re really quite backward.

“Again the Islamophobic point (Labour MP Chuka Umunna) made, it’s a beardy weirdy chap and they’re not quite cutting off people’s hands but I can imagine that being in a future episode.”

Mr Umunna (Streatham) earlier attacked the “representation of our Muslim communities” on broadcast television.

He said: “The rising Islamophobia that we see is in no small part to certain broadcasters, I’ve seen it happen on the BBC but on others, who put up so-called community leaders who purport to speak for that community but have no mandate whatsoever to do so.”

By the way, if you want a really good treatment about censorship and the Regressive Left—a prescient book since it was written in 2011—read Nick Cohen’s You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom (you can get a used paperback by mail for about five bucks). I’m a third of the way through it, while simultaneously reading another equally prescient book by Cohen, the 2007  What’s Left? How the Left Lost Its Way. The censorship book is filled with statements that ring very true, and reflect Cohen’s uncompromising liberalism and support for freedom of speech.

The initial chapters on Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are worth the price of the book alone. One point that Cohen makes, which I’ll underscore here, is about the unpalatability to the Left of liberal Muslims.

I’ve always been puzzled why people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are vilified or rejected by much of the Left. There is no ex-Muslim or liberal Muslim, it seems, except for falsifiers and whitewashers like Reza Aslan, who are acceptable to liberals. But why?

After all, Hirsi Ali should be a poster child against Islamic extremism and misogyny, what with her being black, genitally mutilated, fiercely smart and outspoken, and having brought herself from status as a refugee—from a forced marriage and an unpalatable life under Islam—to membership in the Dutch Parliament. Nawaz was a former extremist Muslim, member of a terrorist organization who converted in prison to liberal Islam, and then founded Qulliam, an anti-extremist think tank. Rushdie, as Cohen shows, has never recovered his reputation after having written The Satanic Verses, whose publication should have been defended by all liberals, but wasn’t.

Why are they vilified? According to Cohen, it’s because, as moderates or apostates, they’re not seen as genuine representatives of Islam, or as having credible opinions. As Cohen notes, the Left sees a “genuine” Muslim as someone with a Kalashnikov in one hand and a Qur’an in the other. I think there’s something to that: it’s the racism of lowered expectations. At any rate, I think most of you will really like Cohen’s discussion of censorship in You Can’t Read This Book.  I recommend it very highly. Along with Hitchens (to whom the book is dedicated), Cohen is the Orwell of our day.  

But I digress. Here’s today’s strip, good but quite subtle—”nuanced,” if you will:

2016-04-20

I haven’t seen the show, but if it’s not presented as representative of all Muslims, then the J&M artist is right. One could just have well deemed All in the Family an anti-working-class show.

And, as lagniappe, reader jsp sent me a link to the latest Pearls Before Swine comic, by Stephan Pastis:

pb160420

Readers’ wildlife photos

April 20, 2016 • 7:30 am

As you read this, I’ll be boarding my flight to Portland, looking forward a lot to visiting that lovely city. I’ll be talking to the Center for Inquiry about free will on Friday and, on Thursday, having a discussion with Peter Boghossian’s class on “religion as a pseudoscience” at Portland State. As I didn’t bring my file of wildlife photos with me, I’ve put this one up in advance; but if readers send me good photos over the next few days, I’ll try to jump the queue and post those.

Today we have three pictures accompanied by a heartwarming tale from reader Bruce Fall:

This winter and spring, two great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) nested in a park near my home in South Minneapolis. Inexplicably, they selected a site only 50 yards from a heavily used path, in full view of hundreds of people daily. Great horned owls don’t build their own nests but use those built by other species, in this case a squirrel. The nest was flimsy from the start, and one night in early March it collapsed and the two young fell to the ground.

I called the University of Minnesota Raptor Center and they sent a volunteer with an artificial nest, which he anchored in the nest tree. The young were unhurt after the 30-foot fall, and the parents readily accepted the new nest. All was fine until a few days ago when one of the young took its initial flight. It flew weakly but managed to get 1/4 mile from the nest, where it ended up on  the ground dangerously close to a very busy street. Two of us guarded the owl for an hour while we awaited the Raptor Center volunteer. He captured it and returned it to its nest tree, and as of yesterday both young are staying home and doing fine.

Wasn’t that nice of Bruce and his helper—and the Minnesota Raptor Center? Here are the photos:

GHOW_1031

The fallen chick about to be returned to its new nest:

GHOW_chicks_0909

The third photo is of an adult bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) wheeling overhead during the first owl adventure.

BAEA_0925

Wednesday: Hili dialogue

April 20, 2016 • 6:30 am

by Grania

Good morning! Jerry is back on the road again today, metaphorically anyway; so I am on Hili Dialogue Duty for this morning. As always, Jerry will join us later on.

Over in Poland, Hili is thinking of herself again; although this time my sympathies lie with the cat. Sand in the bed is never a good experience.

Hili: Cyrus is digging again.
A: So what?
Hili: He’ll get himself mucky and I’ll have sand on my sofa.

P1040063

In Polish:

Hili: Cyrus znowu kopie doły.
Ja: No to co?
Hili: Upaprze się i będę miała piasek na sofie.

As a felid lagniappe, Jerry found these pictures of cats with unusual markings that don’t appear to be dyed, unlike the unfortunate Pikachu cat.

e7df2aad4f928999eb423477331b21c2.600x
Trefoil
440844b01c4051f0a0520945e3bde0db
Cat Woman

 

And now for something completely different. I was listening to this last night and I thought I would share it with you for two reasons:

  • one, it’s a lovely tune;
  • two, this is what people sound like in the Republic of Ireland which is a whole different country from Northern Ireland. There’s even a bit of Irish thrown in there for good measure.

IARLA Ó LIONÁIRD & STEVE COONEY performs the song “TÁ DHÁ GHABHAIRÍN BHUÍ AGAM (THE GOAT SONG)”

There are more details about the performers and Balcony TV if you click through to the More section on Youtube.