Kevin DeGraaf’s Blog

I found myself in a gun-control debate earlier today.

Alex Weaver:

So far as I can tell, keeping and bearing arms in civil life is a means for certain kinds of people to assuage deep and overwhelming emotional insecurities, not a rational response to any threat faced by our present society.

My response:

That’s quite the stereotype. Would you happen to have any evidence demonstrating that law-abiding firearms owners must have such insecurities?

[Another commenter] is correct to point out that concealed carry is useless against car-bombing and other such indirect methods of attack, but you (Alex) went far beyond that to decry defensive weapons use entirely (including a potent dose of ad hominem for good measure).

Are you prepared to back up the assertion that, facing an assailant who is armed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or even just muscular strength and who is intent on committing murder, rape, and/or the infliction of serious bodily injury, it is irrational for innocent parties to have available a reliable method available to deter said attacker?

I’m no “gun nut” (although I suspect you would disagree). I fully support reasonable efforts to block the sale of firearms to those who are morally deficient and/or mentally unstable, and to dramatically strengthen the training, skill, and background check requirements for concealed carry permits. However, I cannot comprehend the reasoning of the ultra-dogmatic anti-gun position.

Criminal defense aside, suppose the government’s recent headlong plunge into tyranny continues unabated. Would this not constitute an ever-growing threat toward rational, liberal society? Are you so steeped in anti-firearm sentiment that you would deny everyone the means to throw off another repressive government, should that become necessary? (If you contend that small arms are insufficient to resist a modern superpower army, please direct your attention to Iraq.)

Alex Weaver:

Kevin, none of what you posted has any coherent relationship to either my actual position or my statements. Observing that the comments of Christopher here and in other threads, and of most others I’ve encountered who share his views, appear to reflect an intense emotional “need” to possess weapons in general and firearms in particular which is entirely divorced from the level of actual risk of the person in question facing any of the scenarios you describe, but which may be highly relevant to the level of threat posed to other citizens in connection with the gratification of said “need,” and is not even an anti-gun position, let alone “ultra-dogmatic.”

What I posted has a very straightforward, coherent relationship to Alex’s attack on gun owners. He made two assertions: (1) that gun ownership is a method for assuaging emotional insecurities, and (2) that gun ownership is not a rational response to any modern threat. I requested evidence for the first assertion, since the burden of proof is on the accuser, and provided two strong rebuttal examples to the second assertion (defense against criminals and defense against tyranny).

If Alex had claimed that a subset of gun owners, in his experience, exhibit emotional immaturity, I would not have objected, but there was no such disclaimer. If he had claimed that, for any given person living in a modern society, the level of risk of an attack in which a defensive firearm could prove useful was rather low, I likewise would not have objected, and that likewise was not even remotely made clear.

The statement that “bearing arms is [...] not a rational response”, without appropriate qualification, is dogmatic. I will be more than happy to consider retracting my assertion of Alex’s ultra-dogmatism pending further clarification toward that end.

I have no idea whether Alex will follow me over here, but he (or anyone) is free to jump into this discussion at any time.

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.

Customer (Kevin DeGraaf) 07/29/2008 10:10 AM

Do you have an API for ordering prints (or at least assembling a shopping cart that can be manually purchased)?

Response (Courteney A) 07/29/2008 07:01 PM

Dear Kevin,
Thank you for contacting Shutterfly.

Shutterfly do have a shopping cart. This allows you to return later to place an order that you had been working on. This also ensures that an order you were working on is not lost if you sign out of your account or close your browser window. For your convenience, Shutterfly will save the contents of your shopping cart for a limited time (10 days) after you sign out. For more information about the shopping cart, please refer to the link below:

Title: Shopping Cart Overview
URL: http://crmweb.shutterfly.com/cgi-bin/helpfly.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=111&p_created=1127316234

If you need further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for using Shutterfly.

Sincerely,

Courteney A.
Shutterfly Customer Service

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…

I just received my new phone, a Treo 680, and am testing how well its browser interoperates with Wordpress.

Update: it works pretty well. 

Cops pay 3 a.m. visit to tell man his door is unlocked

LAKEVILLE, Minnesota — A Lakeville man says he feels violated after two police officers woke him up at 3 a.m. to tell him his door was unlocked.

Their surprise visit was part of a public service campaign to remind residents to secure their homes to prevent thefts. Usually, officers just leave notices on doors.

But they went further in Troy Molde’s case on Thursday. Police entered the house where four children under 7 were having a sleepover, and then went upstairs to Molde’s bedroom.

Are these police officers insane? Invading someone’s house in the middle of the night is bad enough, but entering a bedroom as well?

Let me be very clear: pull that nonsense on me and you will find yourself staring down a .40-caliber barrel.

If you identify yourself as a police officer and explain your presence, I will dial 911 and have a supervisor sent down to resolve the situation. However, if you reach for your gun, I will have no choice but to start firing and keep firing until the threat you pose is neutralized. Michigan’s castle doctrine law will immunize me from prosecution and civil suits.

I don’t want to kill anyone, especially not a police officer, but what the hell do you think is going to happen when you barge into bedrooms at 3:00 in the morning?

What could possibly be the justification for something like this?

The officers told Molde his garage door was open, the TV was on, the keys to his truck were left in the ignition and the door to his house was ajar.

A police spokesman says the intrusion was justified because the officers’ initial door knocks went unanswered, and they wanted to make sure nothing was wrong.

Granted, this homeowner is an idiot for neglecting to secure his property, but that does not give the police the right to trespass, especially in such a dangerous manner.

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.