CepSpeak

Double Negatives Gone Awry

2005-12-02T11:27:00.000-05:00

Dre Bly, of the Detroit Lions, in apologizing for his comments made about his team's quarterback:

"I'm not no negative guy."

I think by using the double negative in that situations, he expressly shows that he is, indeed, a "negative guy."

Ah, the beautiful of people who should be very grateful they have world class athletic talent.

Litmus Test and Activities

2005-11-09T09:45:00.000-05:00

From the NYTimes -

"This is the type of nominee I've been asking for," Senator Brownback said, adding that he was convinced that Judge Alito was "open to a review of cases," even though they did not explicitly discuss Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion.

Brownback's got a litmus test, that much we knew. But is a activist judge one who just continues to uphold precedent or one who changes the law. Is an activist one who is conservative (little C) or one who is dynamic with regards to the law.

I leave that up to you. I just don't like the word "activist." Abortion has been explicitly a constitutional right for 33 years. At some point, and I believe that it has happened, it is the status quo. Only an activist judge would overturn Roe completely.

And yes, I know there are plenty of things I have to write about, including the Tampa controversy.

Cornell on the ID Fight

2005-10-24T12:08:00.000-04:00

From the Cornell Daily Sun:

Drawing from sources ranging from CornellÂs founders to Voyager space missions, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III condemned the push to teach intelligent design in public schools Friday. The attack came during the presidentÂs State of the University Address before a joint session of the Board of Trustees and University Council.
Calling intelligent design Âa religious belief masquerading as a secular idea,Â Rawlings made the unusual move of addressing a larger public policy issue rather than giving an assessment of the UniversityÂs recent performance and upcoming initiatives.
...
ÂWe should not suspend, or rather annul, the rules of science in order to allow any idea into American education. Intelligent design is a subjective concept. It is, at its core, a religious belief,Â he said.
...

The current widespread belief in intelligent design, Rawlings argued, made it a good subject for social scientists and humanists, but its lack of scientific basis left it outside the bounds of biology and evolutionary study.

ÂThis is above all a cultural issue, not a scientific one,Â he said.

Alas, Cornell has it's idiots too:

Hannah Maxson Â07, president of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Club, state in a press release that RawlingsÂ speech had a Âblatant disregard for the facts concerning Intelligent Design.Â The statement defended the belief: ÂIt follows the principles of the scientific method, scorns the bias of either religion or naturalism, and attempts to follow all the available evidence to a valid conclusion.Â

The statement added that ÂID is testable and falsifiable, and so far itÂs [sic] predictions have repeatedly been shown to be accurate.Â
ÂWeÂre disappointed that [Rawlings] seemed so closed minded to all this,Â Maxson told The Sun.

It's weird that in an Ivy League University there are people who can argue that ID is testable. By its very nature, it is not. ID propounds that some "force" (i.e. God) controls evolution. Religion cannot be tested; hence, the notion of faith.

But, go Hunter!!

JFK v. Dobson

2005-10-12T12:58:00.000-04:00

JFK while he was campaigning for the Presidency, Sep. 12, 1960:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

James Dobson, of Focus on Family, in explaining why he supports Harriet Miers' nomination:

"Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion..."

It's a tragedy when we've moved from a country in 1960 where JFK had to assure people that his religion would not dictate his decisions to where in 2005, a Supreme Court nominee's religion reassures people about her decision.

I've never heard before of the judicial philosophy of "Christian" or "Evangelical." I wonder if that's open to anyone, because it surely seems to cut against drawing a judiciary of Americans, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

In the words of Justice O'Connor, whose retirement has prompted this, there is a violation of the Establishment Clause where government actions turn on the religion of the citizen. She wrote:

"The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion."

I would hope that Pres. W would take the Justice's words to heart. Karl Rove hasn't. The above-Dobson quote is Dobson recounting his conversation with Rove that led him to approve of the Miers nomination. Rove is staking approval on religion. A true shame.

Conservative Litmus Tests, Take 2

2005-10-06T14:29:00.000-04:00

Not regarding nominee Meirs, but as a general statement, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) "had said repeatedly that he wanted the next nominee to have a record demonstrating a willingness to reconsider Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision favoring abortion rights."

But alas, they don't have a litmus test.

If the President has no litmus test for his nominees, what should we make of his response to criticisms that Miers is not conservative enough? "Trust me" means what? That Miers will support Roe as a continuing precedent or that she has will surely vote to overturn it. Hm...

"Tell me more, tell me more, did you get very far."

2005-10-05T23:30:00.000-04:00

This is based on a video available here.

When asked nominee Harriet Miers' view of abortion, Pres. Bush responds that he doesn't know. To reassure criticizing conservatives, however, Pres. Bush says that they should trust his judgment.

This argument reminds me of two guys discussing a girl.

- "Was she good in bed?"
- "I don't know, but trust me, she was fantastic."

Tomorrow, I will address litmus tests and Sen. Brownback.

Saving pets at the cost of people...

2005-09-22T17:39:00.000-04:00

This is just ridiculous. Three Congressmen, Reps. Lantos, Shays and Frank, "are sponsoring a bill that would require that state and local disaster preparedness plans required for Federal Emergency Management Agency funding include provisions for household pets and service animals." These representatives are three of my favorites, so I hate to write this. But my golly, who are the most important players in a tragedy? The people. Any penny spent on saving a pet is a penny that should have been spent saving a person. Even Pat Robertson deserves to be saved over someone's dog any day of the week.

The article quotes Rep. Lantos as saying, "''I cannot help but wonder how many more people could have been saved had they been able to take their pets." Additionally, the article cites that the sponsors were "disturbed that some Hurricane Katrina victims refused to leave home because they couldn't take their animals with them." I am disturbed about that too. But there are more cost effective ways of rescuing people than by providing money to save their pets.

In a grand evacuation or rescue effort, precious dollars, space and time should be dedicated to people, not animals. I'm sorry but that who should be more important.

For an ironic result of what this law would potentially bring, I cite to this picture of unknown origins. It may or may not be accurately telling the tale that it purports to tell.

Prayer as Protection

2005-09-22T10:23:00.000-04:00

Sitting on my couch watching coverage of Hurricane Katrina a few weeks back, I came across Pat Robertson on the 700 Club profiling a woman who lived on a Caribbean Island (I forget which one). The story focused on how this Christian woman, in order to escape the horrors of a massive Category 5 hurricane pounding on this island, prayed instead of evacuating. As debris went flying around her and building were torn apart, her little restaurant survived thanks to her prayers.

Several religious leaders have said that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans as a punishment for the city's infamous lifestyle. One Israeli rabbi said the hurricane was retribution for the US's support of the Gaza withdrawal. Pat Robertson, I believe, said it was punishment for New Orleans' annual Mardi Gras bonanza. These statements by religious leaders seek to place the blame for the destruction of a city on the actions of its inhabitants and to directly, in an ancient Biblical way, link crime and punishment. Whether or not God directly punishes people is immaterial. Judeo-Christian leaders should recall the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As debaucherous as those cities were, Abraham bargained with God to save the city if 10 righteous people were found. For TEN people, God would save the cities. Additionally, after the Flood, God promised Noah not to destroy humanity again. God does not provide for wholesale destruction as any sort of wakeup call or punishment. Ten righteous people can save a city. I'm sure there were ten righteous people in New Orleans. This wasn't the hand of God as punishment for anything.

Every geographic location in the world is at the risk of some natural disaster. A city built below sea level in a tropical environment is at the risk of flooding. That is exactly what happened.

As for whether prayer can save. There is a story in the Jewish folklore about a man stranded on an island with no hope of rescue. All he can do is pray for God to rescue him. Finally one day, a boat arrives and offers to rescue the man. The man tells the crew of the boat, "Don't worry, God will save me. You can go on your way." Several days later, the man is still waiting for God to rescue him when another boat arrives. Again, the man turns down the boat crew's offer to help him. A few more days pass and another boat offers to rescue the man. Once more, the man rebukes the crew's offer. Soon thereafter the man dies. When he gets to heaven he sees God and asks God why God didn't save him. God responds, "I sent three boats to save you. What more do you want from me?" The bottom line - prayer without any self-help action won't go so far. Riding out a storm on the basis of prayer is a bad gamble. Pat Robertson's message that prayer will create an invincible forcefield is a shortcut to not surviving a hurricane.

Biden prefers Rehnquist to Scalia

2005-09-15T16:45:00.000-04:00

Realtime Blogging. I'm listening to the confirmation hearings online and writing this as Sen. Feinstein asks witnesses questions.

Sen. Biden just concluded that if Roberts was another Rehnquist, he would probably vote to affirm him, in contrast to another Scalia. Biden may prefer to take that back, as Prof. Geoffrey Stone argues here that, in the area of 1st Amendment law and Free Speech, Scalia has been better at upholding individual rights than Rehnquist.

Stone does empirical research; I'm not. Rehnquist was a politically-oriented Justice who reached policy goals. Scalia, while being wrong incredibly often, is quite principled. He just has wrong principles. That is why Scalia voted the way he did in Kyllo, where he found thermal infrared searches without a warrant violate the 4th Amendment, and Rehnquist saw no constitutional violation.

Sen. Biden, you shouldn't support either a Rehnquist or a Scalia. They are both wrong, even if for different reasons.

Federalism and Disaster

2005-09-11T22:15:00.000-04:00

Conservatives, including Pres. W's cronies, believe in a strong federalism divide separating state and federal. Could this philosophy be the cause for FEMA and W's failures in responding to Katrina fallout? Could W et al. have thought, "let the state and local governments handle this, as federalism, blah blah blah."? And what did we learn from this, that the federal government is better prepared and better equipped to responding to large massive disasters than local governments. Perhaps 200 years ago, a state could have sufficient resources accumulated under a theory of state independence to properly respond to a disaster of this magnitude. However, as American government and federal-state relations have evolved, it is clear now, that local and state government do not have sufficient resources to care for this.

But in the meantime, Congress has mandated that local schools teach another topic. Granted, it's the Constitution, but Congress shouldn't be controlling curricula. How come federalism is a feel-good sort of principle? It works when conservatives can make themselves look good to their overly patriotic constituents, but not when it would save lives and rescue a city.

What's Popular Is Not Always Right

2005-08-31T11:32:00.000-04:00

Sorry no posts, but I was out of the country. Still on vacation, but saw this article and wanted to do a quick post.

Let's say, hypothetically, that 2/3 of Americans didn't agree with the heliocentric model of the solar system (Sun in center), but believed that the Earth was the center. Or that the Flat Earth Society eventually won the popular opinion battle (but not the reality). Does this mean all of a sudden, schools should teach these theories? These theories are best taught only in the context of historical thinking and error. As wrong theories propounded by the establishment. The victory of alternatives over these theories mark important moments in scientific and cultural history.

So then, why does this matter? "...A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools...The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." This is from an NYTimes article.

It doesn't matter. Just because it is popular, doesn't mean it's right. And if it's not right or if it religiously-based, it shouldn't be taught. That is that.

If "41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should," then parents should do that on their own time, not on the public dollar in the public school. We don't ask for schools to teach about Jesus's lessons, why God's creation?

Why is this such an issue?

W on ID

2005-08-03T10:01:00.000-04:00

Speaks El Presidente -

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Thanks W., for your input. Education should expose people to all appropriate theories on a topic, not religious fictions made up as a sword against secular, educational reality.

Could have been....

2005-07-20T15:31:00.000-04:00

Could have been so beautiful
Didn't need to be so right.
Could have been my justice
If only, Dub picked Posner

- Poetry by Cepspeak (adapted from Tiffany).

Quick thoughts on Roberts - He's qualified. I don't like him, would not have picked him. On some level, however, I must defer to the President's selection. If I were a Senator, I would not vote for him. Nonetheless, I would not filibuster. Roberts is on the right-wing, no doubt. But he is not on the fringe of reasonability. He's wrong, not unqualified.

Scandals

2005-07-17T09:43:00.000-04:00

Presidency won in his brother's state by the Supreme Court
Either lying or being incredibly stupid about intelligence that lead his country into war
Friendships with the leaders of the countries from which the 9/11 terrorists came from.
Some shady dealings with those leaders after 9/11
Vowing to find the mastermind behind 9/11 almost 4 years ago. Instead, invaded Iraq based on lies (see #2)
Never finding that mastermind.
Having his henchmen leak false information about his rival for President in 2000 (rumors of McCain and/or his wife's drug use) and in 2004 (Kerry and the Boat people)
Halliburton
His chief advisor leaking the name and/or supplying key information about a covert CIA agent.

At some point, whether these border on illegal or not, at the very least, they show an air of impropriety. As my father told me, your reputation is all you have. W's reputation isn't worth all the WMDs in Iraq. It's all down the tubes.

(This list is all just off the top of my head. I'll add more as I remember)

"Uniter not a Divider"

2005-07-14T15:26:00.000-04:00

Dear Pres. W,

If you are truly a "uniter, not a divider," then choose AG Gonzales to replace Justice O'Connor. While Gonzales would not be my optimal solution, you and the Republican Senate have a right to choose your own candidates. Gonzales is a conservative.

Why Gonzales and not any alternative right-wing candidates? Because you are a uniter not a divider. Therefore, you should choose a moderate candidate. I'm not saying make everyone happy, but do take into account those people who do not agree with you completely.

Gonzales is not perfect, but he is the best of all alternatives.

Love,
Cepspeak

PS - I would nominate Judges Posner or Kozinski over Gonzales, but I don't think that's going to happen. But just in case you want my opinion.

5th Amendment Takings & Your Life

2005-07-13T21:56:00.000-04:00

From a right-wing paranoia case, concerning the Supreme Court's (wrong) decision in Kelo v. New London, in which the Supreme Court interpreted the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause as allowing the condemnation of private property for private development that is "in the public benefit."

Most individual parcels of land provide relatively little tax money for the government. Our Supreme Court has now ruled that a local government's quest for more money is a good reason for allowing them to remove a private person's property and hand it to another private entity, based merely on a possibility that it might make the local government richer.

Following a similar logic, sick or infirm people whose needs are "too expensive" could be required to forfeit their lives in the name of the public benefit.

While I disagree with the Kelo decision, it is not going to be because its principles will be applied to allow euthanasia. Euthanasia has its own constitutional and moral barriers that I do not believe can ever be broached in our system. And rightfully so. The Constitution grants the government the right to take property if certain conditions are met that are relatively low - government can take, so long as government can pay (In Calabresian terms, it's a liability rule - for an academic description, see here.)

Life, on the other hand, carries a property rule. It can only be taken with due process and only in certain situations - death penalty for capital offenses being the only one (Pre-quickening fetuses do not have a "life" that is protectible). Government in enjoined from taking life with a high standard of due process required. Deprivation of property carries no such similar protective measures.

Conservative Litmus Tests

2005-07-03T19:53:00.000-04:00

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was on Fox News Sunday this morning. He said that the President shouldn't have a litmus test for a potential Supreme Court nominee. I agree. I like that.

Sen. Graham is decently conservative. He's not a Frist, but I don't think he's far from that end of the spectrum.

Then, today's NYTimes had an article about conservative opposition if Pres. W nominates AG Gonzales to replace Justice O'Connor. The opposition stems mostly from Gonzales' opinion as a Texas Supreme Court Justice where he struck down a Texas law that mandating parental notification before a minor can get an abortion. This is the root of Gonzales's moderation.

No litmus testing for Justices?? HAHA....the right-wing has litmus tests. Their issues? Abortion, prayer in school, 10 Commandments displays, and whatever makes this country into a theocracy.

Daily Show Bias

2005-07-03T11:29:00.000-04:00

So much I should write about - the 10 Commandments cases, Justice O'Connor's retirement, conservative threatening to be upset if AG Gonzales is nodded for the Court - that I'm just going to talk about the Daily Show briefly.

I love this show. Watch it whenever I can. Usually I just watch the news and the stories; I'm not a huge fan of the interviews. But I watch it all when I can. I've noticed lately that the stories are getting much more anti-Bush, anti-Fox and anti-Republicans. But I do not think that this reflects a bias, however.

While Kerry was campaigning, Daily Show surely went after him in equal proportions as his opponent, el Presidente. Now that W has no opponent, however, he is being judged on his own merits. As a few media outlets are starting to theorize with W's declining job approval ratings, W no longer can frame himself as "better" than an opponent, now he must stand on his own merits. For that he fails.

The Daily Show has turned into a seemingly left-wing oriented show because they concentrate on the Republicans. The Republicans have no opponents right now. The Left is quiet compared to the big news of the day - whatever Frist and Santorum are cooking up, Iraq, etc. Republicans are standing on their own and must face the firing squad that has no distraction. It is about time that the Republicans were evaluated on their own policies and programs. Thank you to the Daily Show for bringing this forward.

That being said, I still think Jon Stewart is a Democrat.

PS - I support Judge Richard Posner for the Supreme Court. I may not agree with him, but he's damn smart.

Scalia and the Judeo-Christian Tradition

2005-06-27T23:14:00.000-04:00

As Prof. Jack Balkin (Law, Yale) alludes in this post. Justice Scalia's dissent in the Ten Commandment cases that came down today, specifically in McCreary County v. ACLU, implies that Ten Commandments displays and government recognition of God descends from tradition. He interprets the Establishment Clause in light of how the early government functions (as opposed to Justice Stevens' reliance on the text itself).

Prof. Balkin states that

"Justice Scalia might respond that tradition going back to the very founding of our country secures the inclusion of Jews and Muslims, but not other religious minorities and not agnostics and atheists. If this is indeed his argument, I must beg to differ. The widespread notion of a "Judeo-Christian" heritage is very recent, a product of the twentieth century-- the idea of a Christian nation was far more common in the 19th century."

As Balkin readily points out, what was originally a Christian society has turned into, in Scalia's mind, a Judeo-Christian-Islam triad of monotheism. But there is no reason to include Jews or Christians in this mix except for the fact that George Washington penned a very famous letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island in 1790. In the letter, Washington wrote that

"All possess alike liberty of conscience and the immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights."

Because of this, Jews are part of the Establishment Clause monotheism.

If this is indeed Scalia's thesis, he is far off, and I see nothing that prevents him from saying that non-Christians do not deserve the protections of the Establishment Clause. After all, Christians make up 76.5% of the American population. See here.

Scalia believes in a popular constitutionalism in this realm. He writes, "the interest of the overwhelming majority of religious believers in being able to give God thanks and supplication as a people, and with respect to our national endeavors. Our national tradition has resolved that conflict in favor of the majority." If that is the case, then the majority has no limit. The three-quarters of Americans who are Christians can decide that they do no like having non-denominational or interfaith Ten Commandments displays. Indeed, the Texas monument was the consensual product of a committee of leaders from Protestant, Catholic and Jewish groups. An idea of popular constitutionalism would allow the next group to cut out any groups that are unnecessary to their majority.

If all that includes Jews and Muslims in the "tent" is Washington's letter, there is not much protection. Scalia's arguments lead directly to a Christian nation. As he argued in the Oral Arguments for Texas case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Ten Commandments "[are] a symbol o fthe fact that government comes...from God. And that is...an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds."

To Scalia, the government can proclaim that its power comes from God and/or Jesus Christ, a statement that many Americans disagree with and find offensive. But most importantly, it is a statement that the Constitution censors the government from saying.

In a great irony, the Ten Commandments are highly important to Christian faiths. Much more so than to Jewish and Muslim groups. To the latter, the Ten Commandments are just more laws, not any more or less special. To the former, they are former foundational laws.

Hm....Secular or Religious Reasons?

2005-06-06T20:19:00.000-04:00

"Gov. Rick Perry traveled to an evangelical school here on Sunday to put his signature on measures to restrict abortion and prohibit same-sex marriage."

This article makes me doubt that "pro-family" means anything more than "pro-Christian." He goes to an evangelical church to sign an anti-abortion and an anti-same-sex marriage laws. Why in a church? If there are secular justifications for these laws, then maybe the statehouse is the best way to honor them? If these were pro-family, why not sign the bills at a Little League game that will do more to honor families than restrict abortion or same-sex marriages ever will.

To borrow some points from the Daily Show and Sports Illustrated, Texas features one of the worst public school program in the country. Yet the responses to the problems are strict anti-education laws, promoting the largest city's school superintendent to Secretary of Education and proposing a law to curtail cheerleading. Texas needs to address its problems. Symbolism won't accomplish much.

Live by the sword, die by the sword

2005-06-06T20:02:00.000-04:00

During the early New Deal, many progressive liberal initiatives were rejected by the Supreme Court as outside the bounds of federal power under the commerce clause. In 1937, one case (Wickard v. Filburn) substantially altered the view of what constitutes commerce clause. In doing so, it opened the door to pervasive federal regulation in all aspects of life. I personally agree mostly with the Court's view. I'm still struggling with some of the issues, but for the most part, the doctrine is sound and agreeable from a legal perspective.

In this vain, some terminally ill residents of California challenged the FDA's proscriptions against medicinal marijuana as being beyond the reach of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. This progressive initiative is being killed by the same sword that progressives championed 70 years ago. The Supreme Court held today that medicinal marijuana and the regulation thereof falls within the power of the federal government. This wasn't a difficult issue for the Court.

Not so ironically, this case was paid for by a conservative libertarian think tank that desires to return commerce jurisprudence. Justice Thomas subscribes to many of their beliefs.

The Supreme Court majority noted that all is not lost. The terminally ill aren't bound by the Court's decision insofar as the democratic process is available to them. If marijuana has medical benefits, then the FDA should recognize them. The system works, so long as the FDA does not become (or stay) a political body. The FDA, as I may have written before, should be a medical body, not a political or moral one.

Today's decision was the correct one. Unfortunately, the Commerce issue which pervaded and dominated the case was clouded by the marijuana issue.

Prosyltizing at the Air Force Academy

2005-05-25T21:21:00.000-04:00

From an article in the Austin American-Statesman (sorry no link):

As a number of newspapers have documented, the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., has essentially established evangelical Christianity as its official religion. The examples are legion. Last season, the football coach hung a banner in the locker room laying out a "Competitor's Creed," including the lines "I am a Christian first and last" and "I am a member of Team Jesus Christ...."

Campus chaplains have encouraged proselytizing among the students, and younger cadets who skipped out on prayer services have been forced by their seniors to march back to their dorms in a ritual called "heathen flight." On one occasion, every seat in the dining hall was covered with a flier advertising a showing of "The Passion of the Christ," including the tagline, "This is an officially sponsored USAFA event...."

[N]o wonder the conservative media, normally obsessed with the role of religion in public life, would have so little to say about this scandal. It undercuts its long-standing effort to portray the religious right as merely defending itself....

[T]he situation at the Air Force Academy...does not represent random excess by the religious right. It's an embodiment of the religious right's vision of America. When asked about the allegations, a spokesman for Focus on the Family replied, "If 90 percent of cadets identify themselves as Christian, it is common sense that Christianity will be in evidence on the campus."

This comment is telling, because it basically jibes with what religious conservatives have been saying for a long time. Most Americans are Christian, therefore the United States is a Christian country. Therefore, institutions of the state ought to promote the majority's religious views, and everybody else ought to shut up and take it....

[A]lthough the religious right doesn't [at present] have the capacity to impose its views on the rest of the country, it certainly has the intent to do so. Conservatives may dismiss fears of a Christian theocracy as liberal hysteria. Theocracy, though, is not an inaccurate description of life at the Air Force Academy.

This is just ugly. The gov't has to be neutral and cannot force anyone to be religious. Stupid religious-rightization of America...

Senate Compromise

2005-05-25T21:00:00.000-04:00

I don't like nominees Owens, Rogers or Pryor. If I were a Senator, I would vote against them. They are ideologically extreme who substitute, inappropriately, political judgment for judicial philosophy. That being said, I also don't like the nuclear option. Not to say I like filibusters, but they serve an important function by creating a more centrist political process. Under the Median Voter Theorem, all decisions in a legislative (or multiple-membered) body are controlled by the median voter (or the voters adjacent to decision point). When the filibuster is available, it, like presidential veto power, moderates final decisions.

Government in not a win-lose contest. It is not a zero-sum game. The goal is for society's benefit best achieved through the deliberations of multiple opinions and viewpoints. Therefore, it bad when, about the Senate compromise, Senate Republicans talk about their victories from the compromise. Said the Times;

Dr. Frist's advisers said that he would not be blamed by conservatives for the defeat, arguing that the heat would be taken by Republicans who agreed to the deal. And they said that in the long run, Republicans would view the development as a defeat for Democrats, no matter the perception this week.

Mr. Minnery [of the Focus on Family] said that the outcome "enhances Bill Frist's stature. He took a principled stand. And the stool was kicked out from under him by the cabal of Republicans who joined with the Democrats."

The "cabal" had the goal of preserving Senatorial tradition, integrity and respect. This compromise reflecting a fear of undermining Senate procedure, not a respect for a Senatorial competition. There was no defeat. There was simply the understanding that the tradition served a purpose that should not be undermined by the nuclear option.

Congressional Steroid Testing Policies

2005-05-19T09:18:00.000-04:00

Sorry to change the focus of this post but, (1) I reserved the right to discuss baseball and (2) I like legal topics. Today, therefore, I want to address Congress potentially legislating steroid testing plans for professional sporting leagues. There is a limit on public sector searches in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be based on probable cause and have a warrant issued. Certain exceptions apply to this. Namely, in emergencies or where the warrant would undermine the search, it need not be obtained. These exceptions are narrow however. Private sector employers have no similar restrictions. The only restrictions on private employers are Congressional-created.

When Congress tells employers to conduct a search, it means the search is governed by the Fourth Amendment. That being so, Congress cannot require searches for professional athletes. There is no emergency investigations, no immediate dangers to society, no individualized suspicion and no action upon which Congress can condition participation.

While steroids may be a problem, Congress should get back to what it can govern and not act like an out of control legislature that gets involved in the issue du jour just because it's interesting.

Quran or WMD

2005-05-17T22:59:00.000-04:00

Newsday reports:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the story's airing "appalling." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chastised the magazine, saying "people lost their lives. People are dead." And White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said "this report has had serious consequences. It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad."

Yet, when reports aboutWMD were seriously wrong no party above cared so much. Good thing no one probed the military/CIA reports or the White House then, but seriously probed a magazine now.

Secular Arguments Against Homosexuality

2005-05-17T12:36:00.000-04:00

Sorry to be so slow, finals and graduation killed my schedule. Still working on a paper. But, as a slight gift, here is just a very brief excerpt. Specifically, it is one paragraph about the secular arguments against same-sex relationships. I'm just going to have to cite myself. I am even including the footnote, sorry.

Although modern arguments against same-sex marriage cite non-religious justifications, these seem to simply be pretexts.[1] It was only until after Bowers that non-religious morality arguments against same-sex behavior arose in the mainstream. Bowers focused almost exclusively on religious morality without citing a secular, non-moral justification for the prohibition against sodomy. Lawrence was treated similarly. In fact, in the Petitioners’ Brief to the Supreme Court in Bowers, petitioners rely only on traditional morality and religious arguments without citing a specific non-moral harm that the ban protects. While this notion may not win the argument, it does create suspicion when evaluating the claims against same-sex marriage.

[1] Cf. Bowers, 478 U.S. 186. See also, Michaelson, 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 307-308 (noting that “the court[s’] explicit reliance upon a certain strain of Judeo-Christian dogma to support their chosen definition of marriage. Virtually without exception, the courts cite Scripture and canon law in support of their position.”).

Bible Classes

2005-05-02T15:05:00.000-04:00

I think I'm going to have to post more often, just so someone besides my father checks out this site.

The school board of Odessa, Texas has voted to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum starting in Fall 2006. The Bible is supposed to be taught in the context of history or literature lessons.

Good luck to this school. They are walking a very fine line. My high school literature course covered the Bible. How to better understand literature and the origin of so many symbols than the Bible (apples, washing, especially washing feet, outstretched arms [see Andy Dufrane after crawling through 3 miles of stuff so disgusting I don't even want to think about it], etc.). Biblical knowledge is crucial to understanding art, literature, history and current events. No doubt about it.

The difference between this proposed class and indoctrination is a very narrow line. I think the administrators' goals are not secular understanding but religious indoctrination. But until that first day of school, we won't know. Someone will challenge the program, and I hope it loses. The cynic in me does not trust a school board in a religious town that wants to teach Bible from a secular perspective. I wish them well if they can, though.

The Bible as history/literature/art/etc cannot be taught as truth. It cannot be "God created the world in 6 days and on the seventh he rested." It must be "These religions believe that..." The Bible should not be presented as a history textbook but as an acknowledged source of ideas and inspiration regardless of its veracity.

Activist Courts and Prayer in Schools

2005-04-26T16:47:00.000-04:00

Family Research Council: "Many of the negative changes in American society over recent decades have been imposed by judges. The removal of prayer from public schools,... [was] ... Imposed by activist judges, without considering the will of the people and their elected representatives."

FACT: Wallace v. Jaffree, which found unconstitutional an Alabama statute creating a minute for silent prayer was decided in an 6-3 Court. The lone dissenter was Justice Rehnquist. Among the members of the majority were Justices Blackmun, O'Connor, Powell, Stevens, and Brennan. All seven were appointed by Republicans. Only Justice Marshall was appointed by a Democrat.

Furthermore, the Court explicitly left open the question of whether a statute authorizing a moment of silence would violate the Constitution. The Justices who addressed the question (in a non-binding manner) indicated that such a provision would not offend the Constitution.

Activist Courts & Congress

2005-04-26T11:44:00.000-04:00

On Sunday, the right-wing Christian conservative theocracies of the world organized to put God behind filling vacancies on the federal courts of appeals. As God probably doesn't care, I am going to say this was simply a way of Frist and DeLay to further stoke the fire of hatred among their constituences. The "peace and love" of the sixties has turned into an "Us (religion) versus them (non-evangelical Christian)." I got plenty to write about this stuff, and hopefully will get to it sooner or later.

Today's topic though is "What is an activist court?"

Is it one that curtails Congress? Civil liberties? Undermine personal autonomy? Increases personal autonomy? Simply disagrees with the person?

I believe that there are rarely displays of activist courts. The only examples that I can think of occurs when a court severely oversteps its legal bounds with no basis in law at all. The only example I can think of is the district court in Wallace v. Jaffree who thought itself not bound by Supreme Court precedent (It was and got a Supreme Court rebuke).

I may disagree with Justices Scalia and Thomas often, but neither is an activist. Scalia's notion of "original intent" may be wrong as a judicial philosophy but not wrong as an inappropriate method of judicial decision-making. Thomas also has an out-moded view of the constitution. It is wrong, but not unreasonable. Just very very very wrong.

That being said, do liberals or conservatives strike down more Congressional actions, if that's the definition of judicial activism? Well, the biggest judicial critic of the Schiavo legislation was Judge Stanley Birch of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. See his concurring opinion. Note that he also agreed with his court when it upheld a Florida law that denied the right to adopt children to same-sex couples.

On the Supreme Court, conservatives strike Congressional actions all the time. See sovereign immunity claims based on civil rights legislation (Violence Against Women Act, for example), gun control laws (Printz), Seminole Tribe. Liberals do it too. See Lawrence. Everyone has principles of the limits of governmental power. They are different limits in different fields. I disagree with certain conclusions regarding these limits, but they are somewhat principled.

And God doesn't care. And it shouldn't be a religious battle. Those should be saved for religious wars and crusades over theology and who can go to heaven.

Only Jesus Cares for the Courts

2005-04-15T00:38:00.000-04:00

Or Sen. Frist would make you think, as this article points out. By joining ranks with all the usual ranks of Christian coalition theocrats, Frist is turning a legitimate tool of political debate into a religion v. secular debate. I haven't read the Bible completely, but have heard a pretty good portion of it. In it, I don't ever recall reading about God's position about the judicial appointment process in America.

Giving advise and consent powers to the Congress mediates the President's nominations to the courts. He cannot choose an ideological extremist because they will not get the requisite number of votes. The requisite number of votes for right-wing whack-jobs is 60. (Side note, as Sen. McCain admits, Republicans filibustered and blocked Pres. Clinton's judicial nominees. This, dear reader, is a two-way street.). The Senate has approved a vast majority of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees. Some, a minority refuses to sanction, finding them extremist and unfit for the judiciary. By withholding their consent, they are forcing the President to find more moderate judges. He has found them. Now he can continue looking. I'm sure they are plenty left out there.

And the real kicker is, this isn't a battle against religious, its a battle to maintain moderates on the bench.

I hereby support Judge Posner for the Supreme Court. He's one of my most preferred Republicans. I may disagree with him, but he's principled and not ideologically-blind or -driven.

______________________
After writing this, I caught wind of these fine specimens of good marketing. This picture is priceless. I'd like to find the person who must choose between religion and public service.

And the Family Research Council's message on all this. (I love these guys)

Apparently this upcoming Sunday is Justice Sunday!! Its the biggest Sunday since the Daytona 500!!

______________________
Another update: I feel like I missed the big key principle on this. Sen. Frist has turned American politics into a religious war. To quote one of the more interesting as a person Supreme Court Justices:

Government may neither promote nor affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, nor may it obtrude itself in the internal affairs of any religious institution. The application of these principles to the present case mandates the decision reached today by the Court.” Lee, 505 U.S. 577 at 599 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (Sorry about the formatting)

Frist is using religion to accomplish political objectives. There is something very dirty about that.

Van Orden v. Perry

2005-04-14T15:54:00.000-04:00

As promised, I said I would get to this case, Van Orden v. Perry. This case concerns a monument on the Texas state grounds in Austin. The monument is 6 feet tall and displays the Ten Commandments, a version that merges the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish versions. It was given in 1961 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles (though some evidence indicates it was part of Cecil B. DeMille's marketing strategy for the movie the Ten Commandments).

Among other displays in the area are 12-18 foot tall monuments dedicated to other causes important to Texas - liberty, Confederacy, Alamo, veterans, etc.

I agree that the Ten Commandments has some secular importance, in much the same way that the Bible, Hammurabi's Code, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Blackstone, etc. have importance. I believe the state can display that.

My problem with the monument at issue here is that it is not going towards the secularness of the 10 Commandments, but to the religiousness. As you can see by the picture of the monument, the first line is the statement, "I am the Lord Thy God," in much larger type than any other message. Additionally, on the monument are the stars of David and chi-rhos. These symbols are not getting to the secularness of the 10 Commandments, but underscoring their importance to religious development.

This display is heavy on religious and therefore constitutes an endorsement of religion. By being placed at the Texas government, it is in essence telling the Texas officials that Christian principles should guide you and that you should adhere to a Judeo-Christian belief structure. The Texas Constitution does that.

The chief issue in these cases is one of context. The context of the monument indicates it to be in a museum setting honoring the donors. The content, however, refutes that fact. This is a monument that showcases Christian principles.

Justice Scalia, in the arguments for this case, indicated that the display is constitutional as a statement that the state's power derives from God. With all due respect Justice Scalia, it is unconstitutional for that very fact.

I'll try writing about this case's companion - McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky - soon if I get a chance. Been a little bogged down writing about the religious nature of bans on same-sex marriage.

Flip Side of Wal-Mart

2005-04-03T01:16:00.000-05:00

In this post, I made the point that national pharmacies were more likely to be resistant to conscientious objectors in their ranks. Apparently, the flip side of that is when the whole national chain refuses to provide a specific medication. According to the NYTimes, Wal-Mart refuses to stock the morning-after pill. So, the pharmacists are protected as the chain is to blame. Wal-Mart is an interesting case of a store making value judgments. I don't approve of their decisions (see , e.g., editted movies, only kid-friendly everythings, etc.), but its an interesting marketing/money making technique.

Pharmacists' Religious Refusals

2005-03-30T15:51:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post, in an article on Sunday, told the story of pharmacists who refuse, on religious grounds, to fill prescriptions for certain drugs, namely morning after pills and contraceptives. They claim, and in a certain way are right, that their personal/religious beliefs supersede their responsibilities as pharmacists towards the public.

Pharmacists, like many other service professions, are dedicated to the public service and should not inject their personal beliefs into their work. An accountant, for example, should not refuse to recognize a charitable deduction to the ACLU simply because he is an evangelical Christian (or vice versa). These professionals are doing work for the client, not the other way around.

More importantly is what happens if in a given county, all the pharmacists subscribe to the same belief structure and all refuse to dispense morning after pills, for example. This issue is much more dangerous than the previous. For here, it is impossible for a person to legally obtain what they have a right to possess. The danger is allowing local determinations decide availability and legality is that a protected product/interest may be locally outlawed instead of nationally protected. Women who need the morning after pill, holding a valid prescription may be unable to get one.

Say what you will about the big box store-ization of American and the prominence of CVSes, Duane Reades, Wal-Marts and KMarts around the country but at least it ensures that local biases do not influence medical and pharmaceutical decisions.

In most situations, pharmacists are not in a position to assert their views. They are service providers, not moral decision makers. They do not hold veto power over a patient and judge whether a drug is appropriate. They must defer to the decisions of doctors without involving their personal viewpoints (unless the patient's life is at risk due to some oversight by the doctor).

Schiavo Fallout

2005-03-29T18:32:00.000-05:00

Having written about the horrible way that the rule of law has been treated in the Schiavo case, I think its best to turn back to what this blog is about - Religion in American government (I mean that loosely).

Two results are occurring from the Schiavo situation:

People are writing and creating living wills to express their desires should they ever be in a coma/vegetative state/etc.
State legislatures are reviewing their laws to make sure they control what they want them to control.

As for the first result, I think that's a fair result and I don't want to deal with it. Given the liberty and autonomy we allow citizens, it is fair to provide them the freedom to decide ex ante what should happen if they become comatose or vegetative.

State legislatures are also getting involved. Presumably states have only several choices in their laws.

They can allow living wills to guide decisions.
In the absence of a will, the State can create a mechanism to appoint a neutral-person to investigate and apply the person's wishes.
In the absence of a will, they can have the next of kin or closest family member make the determination.
They can simply say that the plug can never be pulled. When for financial reasons, it is no longer feasible to keep this person alive, we, as the State, will support this person. We value life in the "W"-ian sense.

I think choices 1, 2 and 3 are fair options. I also think 4 makes sense too and I would defer to a legislature that makes such a choice. If the state determines that the lives of its citizens are so valuable that it will remain optimistic in the face of a coma, then the state has the right to do so. The state controls the value of a life (in a tort context), the punishment for taking a life (in a criminal context); it may control to what extent medical care is necessary or appropriate for an individual. This may seem highly paternalistic, but the state is often paternalistic. I am not saying this is THE only correct choice, just that this is a reasonable choice. The state can determine that life is so valuable that it will sustain it.

This may be very poor policy, however. And it certainly has constitutional implications as the Supreme Court has said that a person has a right to not have further medical treatments conducted on them. But around that qualification, the state has a lot of power. For example, as Congress tried to do for Schiavo, there can be a presumption that without express personal consent, treatment won't be stopped. For more, see Cruzan, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

I do not even believe that there is an issue if the legislators choose this option because it corresponds with their religious beliefs. Religion, for many people, serves as a moral guide. Legislators act in accordance with their conscience which is often based on their world view, itself based on their religious and moral views. To deny legislators the right to act based on their beliefs is to deny them Free Exercise.

That being said, this ONLY applies where there is also a clear secular reason for a policy. Simply because there is a religious basis, doesn't mean and shouldn't mean that the policy doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. In fact, it is very important to watch when policies are based on religious motives to protect against Establishment Clause violations. As such, a legislator can say life has a certain value that means that the State has an interest in preserving it, for there is secular support for that statement. But, the legislator cannot ban same-sex marriage because of his Biblical interpretation, for there is no secular support for that.

I am still struggling with this view, in part, because the Religion Clauses, in tandem, demand balance, not the exclusion of each other. Legislators can be guided by their moral beliefs based on religious tenets. They cannot legislate their religious beliefs, however. Religious purposes for a law do not make valid support. There must be a secular logic.

The tragedy of Florida was that they picked a mechanism; the courts enforced that mechanism and then unhappy with the result, the political actors tried to get involve.

______________________
Programming note: I've read all the briefs on the Van Orden v. Perry Ten Commandments case and am arguing it tomorrow night. I will report back my thoughts afterwards. A sneak preview: I am arguing in favor of the 10 Commandments and went in with an open mind. But MY brief convinced me that my side was wrong. I didn't even need the other side. When a brief argues that the statement "I am the Lord thy God" is a secular statement, it just doesn't jive.

Shays has it right

2005-03-23T22:59:00.000-05:00

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Ct.) on the Schiavo stuff: "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."

Congress Picking Judicial Goals

2005-03-23T14:05:00.000-05:00

The aspects of the Shiavo case I find the most interesting is that Congress has tried to dictate the results in a judicial proceedings. This is, however, way outside their power. Congress can create jurisdiction, create causes of action and create rights. It may not determine that a right was violated or that a cause of action has indeed occurred. Congress is not the jury, only a conduit to get into court.

That being said, many commentators have accused the Florida Federal District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals of ignoring Congress's wishes in upholding the Florida court decisions. But I've addressed that. The appellate judiciary and appellate court structure are not about substantive ends but about procedural and ensuring that procedure is correct. That has been done.

The Schindler's Motion in the district court was a challenge to the procedures used by the Florida courts over the last few years. Their challenge did not go far enough. Based on the Congressional law giving them the right to sue, they should have asked for a new investigation into the medical results. Congress gave the Schindlers the right to challenge in federal court "the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States." Furthermore, "the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act."

Instead of challenging that Terri isn't in a persistent vegetative state (as they and Sen. Frist have charged in television interviews), they asserted that the Florida processes were faulty. Generally, that is the way to win an appeal. Here, however, a new cause of action was created that owed no deference to the state proceedings. The Schindlers had a bad lawyer.

On another note, I read an article on Newsmax, in which the author pointed out the substance of law schools. Her main contention while arguing against judicial activism (insanely apparent in the desires of the Congress this past weekend):

Would it surprise you to know that law schools tell students to refer to the opinions of judges rather than the original language or intent of the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Constitution has been replaced by case law, process, precedent, social theories and groupthink of the legal profession. Forget the Constitution our leaders swear to uphold. The legal profession has made it a mockery.

If judges only followed the letter of the Constitution in every case and did not revisit previous interpretations, two results would follow.

The law would shift and change with every interpreter as no interpreter is bound by their predecessors. Even the Brennans and Scalias of the judiciary are bound by opinions with which they disagree (up to the point that they can distinguish the cases). This is the notion of stare decisis.
The opinions of judges as guidance (along with the other mentioned evil sources of thoughts on law) mean that law need not be rediscovered each time a question comes up. Judge 2 doesn't have to figure out what the Establishment Clause means anew after Judge 1 has interpreted in a certain way.

The author of the statement, I'm sure, ignores the fact that precedents are not partisan and they cut both ways.

The plain text of the constitution is very ambiguous (What the heck does "due process of law" mean? Is it procedural, substantive or both?). Case law provides a developing interpretation of the issues.

Me on Schiavo

2005-03-23T10:26:00.000-05:00

This is what was supposed to be posted on the Blue Line. I'm rather unhappy with the blogger's lethargy with posting such great prose. This is more political and partisan than I like to be on this blog. I will write more about Schiavo from the political process/judicial perspective tonight or tomorrow. I'm sorry if my entry seems dated; I wrote it Monday morning (48 hours ago). Without further ado:

After a tsunami struck southeast Asia, German Chancellor cancelled his vacation and rushed back to his office to coordinate relief efforts. President Bush remained in Crawford, Texas claiming that there was nothing he couldn't do in Texas that he could do in Washington. Wrong decision, but the time has passed.

This past weekend, Pres. Bush rushed from Crawford to DC so that if Congress passes a law regarding Terri Schiavo, he would be at the helm to sign it immediately citing the value of life, yadda yadda yadda.

Bush, in his history, has claimed that he opposes activitist judges and that he wants to support the "Rule of Law." Heck, I love the rule of law. I study the rule of law. It will pay my bills until I retire. Florida courts have said that Mrs. Schiavo is brain dead and unreceptive to external stimuli. Additionally, her husband has legal control over her and is expressing her wishes. Therefore, the feeding tube can removed and the results achieved. For Mr. Schiavo, this must be a heart-wrenching decision. He has seen his wife for 15 years in a catatonic state, vegetating in a hospice. As the guest-host on the O'Reilly Factor on Friday said, Mr. Schiavo gets no gains from this. This isn't a money-making decision for him. The courts have spoken; the rule of law established; the feeding tube can be removed consistent with American law.

Now Congress wants to give the federal courts the right to hear this decision? As most commentators have said to this - this is just a cost-free tool for Right to reach out to their religious constituencies. The federal courts will probably defer to the state factfinding decision. Bush gets another notch in his "sanctity of life" belt for really doing nothing.

The true irony of this whole thing? From DigsbyBlogs:

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Lastly, a quote posted on Craigslist:

"Where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."
-President Bush the texecutioner.

Role of Courts in the Schiavo Mess

2005-03-21T23:05:00.000-05:00

I've written a lengthy take on Schiavo to be posted on the Blue Line. The link will be up soon. If my buddy doesn't, I'm going to post it here. Stay tuned. In the meantime, some political commentary....

From the NYTimes:

President Bush returned to the White House from his vacation in Texas solely to sign the law. He later praised Congress for "voting to give Terry Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life."

The role of courts is not to provide another opportunity for a party to try and try and try again. The role of courts is to ensure that justice is served. Congress was right in their actions if you believe that the state courts did not have appropriate judicial oversight in the appellate process, not if you believe that Terri Schiavo should be saved. The judiciary should not be goal-driven, but process-driven. That is, the structure should serve the needs of fairness, justice and due process, not a specific policy directive.

More ID Fun

2005-03-15T15:38:00.000-05:00

I feel like I've beaten this topic to death, so I won't get into the whole of the Washington Post article about the topic. Suffice it that I will just address this plum quotation.

A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of Education intends to revise teaching standards. That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said, because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys."

I'm glad that this minister's ideas of what should be taught is based on the citizen's beliefs. That means, 500 years ago, no one in Kansas would be taught that there Earth is round or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

More importantly, I find it hard to believe that my body is built of cells that are in turn built of molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons and quarks. Does that mean it shouldn't be taught? I find it perplexing that x/x has no value where x = 0. Does that mean it's out of the Kansas curriculum? Dear Minister Fox, please don't judge academic and intellectual progress on what the citizens think. I don't "think" a lot of things. But I'm not an academic, so my opinion shouldn't matter so much.

Religious Distribution in Texas

2005-03-14T16:36:00.000-05:00

SB 843, introduced into the Texas Legislature last week:

An act relating to the distribution of flyers at a public school by a
nonprofit organization.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:                    
SECTION 1.  Subchapter Z, Chapter 33, Education Code, is
amended by adding Section 33.906 to read as follows:
Sec. 33.906.  DISTRIBUTION OF FLYERS BY NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION.  (a)  A school district shall, to the extent
reasonable, accommodate an organization in distributing flyers at a
district campus if the flyer complies with Subsection (b) and the
district's superintendent or the superintendent's designee
determines that:
 (1)  the organization qualifies for a tax exemption
under Section 501(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as an
organization described by Section 501(c)(3) of that code; and
 (2)  the activities promoted in the flyer are
acceptable and beneficial for the district's students.
(b)  Each flyer must state that:                               
 (1)  the activity promoted in the flyer is not a
school-district-sponsored activity; and
 (2)  the district does not endorse the activity.                   
(c)  An organization that is permitted to distribute flyers
under this section shall provide a campus administrator with the
flyers bound in groups of 25, unless the administrator specifies a
different amount, so that the administrator may provide for
distributing the flyers for the organization.
SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

In short, this bill would force school districts to send home with the students any fliers given to them by any nonprofit organization. Nonprofit organization interested in this would generally be churches and other religious organizations. Notice two keys point in this bill:
- Gov't disclaims any endorsement.
- Gov't disclaims any promotion.

So long as the flier is "beneficial for the district's students," the administrators have no discretion. Can the government/school administrators, however, determine that attendance or involvement with religious programming be "beneficial" to the students? Does that violate the Establishment Clause? It does.

The Religious Right might also worry about what happens if they get what they want. If the town's church gets access, soon, maybe the not-as-well liked organizations will want (and get) access. School administrators may not discriminate between religious groups they find beneficial and those they don't (see Establishment Clause). Come on in Scientologists!!

Finally, there is some question as to whether a legislature can discriminate in the speech area between for-profit and nonprofit organizations when granting access. This came up last year during the Do-Not-Call list debates and remains an open question. Therefore, what may happen is that with the Church bulletins, student may come home with the Walmart circular. I doubt this is what the legislature has in mind.

Ayn Rand on the 10 Commandments

2005-03-14T10:19:00.000-05:00

This article by Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute presents an interesting argument against public displays of the 10 Commandments. I have yet to write about this topic, one I find incredibly interesting, mostly because I will read all the Supreme Court briefs, but have yet to do so. The chief question that I contemplate is to what extent presentations of comparative religion and valid arguments about Biblical influence on American law can be displayed in secular displays. If comparative religion classes in public schools are allowable, can the principles that guide that determination also guide secular displays the Ten Commandments within certain contexts? I'm mixed on that issue.

Anyway, back to Binswanger. His chief arguments are that the Ten Commandments do not reflect American values. First, the notion of a superior deity strikes at the American reliance of self-autonomy and individualism.
Second, the Second Commandment's statement concerning generational punishments ("I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.") breaks the American norm of individual responsibility and the idea that only an individual is to be punished for their actions. The American structure does not allow for third party punishments. Binswanger takes offense with requiring honoring "your father and mother," for that eliminates a merit-based and instead turns to a position-respect structure.

As to the prohibitions against activities that are the second set of Commandments, Binswanger writes, "what is objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong."

Binswanger sums up his arguments by stating:

The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires:

-- a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family;

-- an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma;

-- an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of a jealous God who issues commandments.

I don't necessarily respect the relevance of this. The debate is not a normative debate about to what extent the 10 Commandments should influence the formation of American law, but a debate concerning the historical influence of Biblical law. I don't think it can be argued that Judeo-Christian law is not one influence of many, but it must be maintained in its place with Socrates/Aristotle/Plato, Enlightenment thinkers, Hammurabi, etc.

Faith-Based Subsidies

2005-03-03T18:11:00.000-05:00

The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to extend social services funding to religious organizations that discriminate in hiring based on religion. Voting stats here. The vote was 224-200, split mostly along party lines.

The crux of the new law is:

Under current law, religious organizations that participate in federal job-training programs cannot discriminate in hiring or firing for taxpayer-funded jobs. The House bill would remove that prohibition, meaning that a church or synagogue could use a person's religious beliefs in determining employment for a federally funded job.

Religious groups are protected by the Free Exercise Clause and the 1964 Civil Rights Act to discriminate in hiring based on religion, as they should be.

I also have no doubt that faith based social services are successful. My problem is with the government providing funds to groups that can discriminate against someone's religion.

A hypothetical: The World Church of the Creator refused to hire blacks into its administration. Additionally, it runs a successful charitable organizations. Should the federal government fund it? I would hope not. The government should not support groups that discriminate against protected groups.

Even if the group wasn't so objectionable, do we want a government that promotes a discriminatory organization that would function without the government support? Society has no problem with religions that discriminate against nonbelievers. The chief questions is what do we want to promote - federally subsidized intolerance and discrimination OR social programs that would function fine without government interference? The marginal benefit to the religious organizations is not worth the government corruption.

Note: The World Church of the Creator is the former name of a white supremacist ministry run by Matthew Hale.

Scalia on Establishment

2005-03-03T12:34:00.000-05:00

From the Supreme Court arguments yesterday in McCreary County v. ACLU (if you click the link, you have to scroll down to March 2) - one of the 10 Commandments cases, taken from here.

Justice Antonin Scalia was the biggest booster of the displays, asserting several times that the message conveyed by the display was both deeply religious and constitutionally acceptable.

"It is a symbol that government derives its authority from God, and that's appropriate," said Scalia. He estimated that 90 percent of Americans agree with the message -- even if, as he joked, "85 percent couldn't tell you what the Ten Commandments are."

Scalia's view of the Establishment Clause is that it protects against discrimination between religions not between religion and nonreligion. I don't agree, but that's his view as expressed in a speech written up here.

The government may not encourage, advertise, express, share, espouse or establish a religious message. In some contexts, government discussion of religion is appropriate. Schuylkill, where appropriate, should be taught about religions and their impacts on history and culture. The Bible should be part of a literature class. Additionally, discussions of the origins of American law would be incomplete without a discussion of Judea-Christian laws just as they would be incomplete without a discussion of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and John Locke.

That is a complete different ballgame than a government acknowledgement that its power comes from God. First, in America, our government is not divinely inspired. It is a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Our country is not a theocracy, but a democracy.

Second, government should not espouse this religious statement that it draws its authority from God. That is not a fact; it is a religious pronunciation best reserved for religious debates.

Terminator on Religion

2005-03-01T21:37:00.000-05:00

Some choice insights from Gov. Schwarzenegger from his interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC's "This Week" from Sunday, Feb. 27. For the record, this is a combined 27 letters of last name. Material drawn from here.

The ABC anchor then moved to religion noting that Schwarzenegger is a Catholic and asking, "How do you reconcile your political positions on abortion, on gay rights, on the death penalty? They're opposed to the positions of the Catholic Church, the pronouncements of the pope. How do you reconcile that?"

Schwarzenegger said it was "easy" and that he never experienced a "sleepless night" over supposed conflicts between religious dogma he professes to and his political actions.

"I'm representing the people of California," Schwarzenegger explained. "The people of California, all of them are not Catholics so, therefore, I do not bring in my religion into this whole thing. As a matter of fact, religion should have no effect on politics."

No effect at all, Stephanopoulos asked.

"I think it should not," the governor continued. "I mean, if you make a decision, it should not be based on your religious beliefs. It should be based on what is it how can you represent the people of California the best possible way? And we have a combination. We have Jews, we have Christians and we have Hindus. We have Buddhists. We have all kinds of different religions here and there's 140 some religions in this state."

Seemingly surprised or somewhat dubious, Stephanopoulos continued, "So your faith plays no role in the forming of your political philosophy?"

"Not for me," Schwarzenegger said.

Moreover, the governor proclaimed that he was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment principle of keeping church and government separate.

"Absolutely," the governor declared. "I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, and I think that's what also, you know, the law is. It's what we all ought to do."

As you've noticed, Schwarzenegger's view of the role of religion as guiding political views is the optimal view. Politicians should not legislate their religious morality on those people who do not share their faith. If a person wants to subscribe to Catholic dogma, he can convert; he need not have it forced upon him.

Bush's Bait & Switch

2005-02-27T22:57:00.000-05:00

Some insight from an article on salon.com by Farhad Manjoo dealing with the Religious Right and Bush's social security plan:

Some Republicans say it might be premature to see the religious right's displeasure with Social Security privatization as a sign of an emerging split in the Republican Party between social conservatives and Wall Street types. However divergent their various goals, Republicans say they know that their party works better as a united group, when all sides band together and stick it to the Dems rather than to each other.

Bush's second-term focus on money issues like Social Security, the tax code, and tort law, rather than on gay marriage and abortion, proves a point that several liberal analysts put forward during the campaign: Republican politicians constantly use the culture wars to hoodwink religious people into voting for big-business ideas that, ultimately, run against the financial interests of the voters. "This is a party with a mission, a historical mission it's adhered to since the 1930s -- and that has been the mission of the business community, the repeal of the New Deal and war with the labor movement," says Thomas Frank, whose book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" offers the most detailed explication yet of the theory that Republicans fan the flames of social issues only to get their way on business issues. Social Security privatization, Frank says, is further proof that religious people "are getting played"...

But if it's true that the business-community Republicans are willing to lose some elections over Bush's Social Security proposal, it's also true that social conservatives aren't committed to the plan. Social conservatives, [Richard] Viguerie [the direct-mail maven who is considered one of the engineers of the religious right's political dominance] says, are not convinced that Bush's Social Security plan is worth a steep political price. Many people think, he says, that "maybe we don't need to stick to our neck out on it." And if Republicans are going to stick their necks out, if they're going to do something that may be politically costly, social conservatives would prefer that it be something that promotes family values...

I think the irony is plain to see.

(Thanks to Social Gospel Today for heads-up)

Founders' Religion

2005-02-27T11:10:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry that so much of my news comes from the NYTimes, but it happens to be what I read most. I also check out certain right-wing and religion-oriented organizations, such as foxnews.com, newsmax.com and the Family Research Council. Today's Times featured an article discussing the personal religious views of the Founders (and Abraham Lincoln). The Right has, in reversing the American notion of separation of church and state, often pointed out that the understanding of the First Amendment today does not accurately reflect the understanding of the Founders.

For example, the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") was a way of protected official State churches from federal interference. This view has mostly been rejected as the Supreme Court has moved away from it. The only holdover who subscribes to it is Justice Thomas. See his concurrence in Newdow v. Elk Grove ("The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."). The notion that prayer shouldn't be recited in public schools would be foreign to the Founders. But then again, so would the concept of public schools. I'll leave that discussion to another time. This entry concerns to what extent the Founders' religiosity should inform our Constitutional determines.

The Times article discusses how David Barton, "a leading conservative Christian advocate for emphasizing religion in American history," argues that the Founders' personal religiousness and religious understanding should inform our views of what they meant the First Amendment means. Therefore, if Jefferson was not a deist, but a Christian, however defined, it alters the meaning of the First Amendment.

It is immaterial to what extent the Founders were religious. Their understanding of religion as a personal matter should not affect how their words govern First Amendment jurisprudence today. Even if Pope Pius VI was one of the founding fathers who drafted, that shouldn't lend any information as to what the nature of the role of government in religion is, only the nature of the Founders' personal beliefs.

The important questions revolve around the Founders' writings and their intentions for public religion. David Barton's inquiries into personal beliefs is not the way to go. I agree, however, that the realities of the times are important. But those realities must be viewed together with the development of the contemporary American system.

Update: O'Reilly was good on SpongeBob

2005-02-22T22:01:00.000-05:00

Apparently, O'Reilly saved SpongeBob, according to a dialogue from his radio show. The guest is Robert J. Thompson, director of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television. They're discussing Postcards from Buster and SpongeBob.

THOMPSON: Buster does not get any more explicit than someone she would see outside of the house. And here's the rub on all of this: the people who are making the most complaints about this -- it's kind of the same mentality of the people who are complaining -- you know, speculating that SpongeBob SquarePants is gay. It's corrupting what was this kind of innocent little TV show: SpongeBob, Buster, Teletubbies --

O'REILLY: OK, but wait. There's one big, big fallacy in your argument, with all due respect. I agree with you on SpongeBob, and we mocked that, and, as soon as we did that, it went away -- and people say to me, "O'Reilly, you do X, Y, and Z" -- I saved SpongeBob single-handedly. All right? As soon as I ran it on [FOX News'] The [O'Reilly] Factor [on January 24], Dobson and his crew shut it down. Did you notice that, doctor?

THOMPSON: No, I didn't notice that direct correlation --

O'REILLY: It was over the next day. Believe me, all right? I saved SpongeBob's reputation. SpongeBob's my best friend now.

Materials were taken from O'Reilly's radio show, aired on Feb. 16. Quotes taken from story here.

I love when O'Reilly correlates his treatment of a story with the resolution of it. That man does more in this world than Superman. I can barely contain myself from linking the sexual harassment complaint against him that was settled. See http://www.thesmokinggun.com for it. I'm above linking it myself.

Television Tolerance

2005-02-22T20:53:00.000-05:00

In the past few weeks, two television shows have aired shows featuring gay issues. The first, Postcards from Buster, airing on PBS featured a Bunny who visited the home of a lesbian couple in Vermont as a way of learning about farm life and maple sugaring. See MSNBC piece here. As the article makes clear, this episode didn't air nationally after Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was angered by its tolerance. Instead, local PBS networks had the discretion whether to air it. PBS's official explanation for the partial-cancellation was that the "decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time."

Then, this past episode of the Simpsons finds Homer conducting same-sex marriages in Springfield, which advertises here. After the episode, the NYTimes commented on the Simpsons' decision to enter the gay marriage debate. They simply pointed out that the Simpsons does this all the time, this occasion being no different. The article featured the sentiments of the Parents Television Council who objected to the episode because "at a time when the public mood is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, any show that promotes gay marriage is deliberately bucking the public mood." Additionally, "You've got a show watched by millions of children. Do children need to have gay marriage thrust in their faces as an issue? Why can't we just entertain them?"

This sentiment echoes what Bill O'Reilly said about Buster's adventures. I'm sorry I don't have a transcript, but O'Reilly commented that parents should be able to control their child's exposure to gay issues. O'Reilly also had a few choice words for the PBS Pres. who is resigning in part because of this. I don't want to address those comments, but see here.

Let's change this situation a little. Pretend that instead of a child and cartoons addresses gay tolerance, we are in a fundamentalist Islamic country, say run by the Taliban, and the government and/or public demand that tolerance for non-Muslims such as Christians, Jews and specifically American culture is excised from television. The right-wing public argues that they want to control when their children are exposed to different people and introduced to the concepts of tolerance. Do we like this idea? Or should television be free to air tolerance-laden messages?

O'Reilly actually did compare Buster's adventures to a "bigamy situation in Utah" and an "S&M thing in the East Village," which is far misplaced from reality of the situation. Gay couples are (1) lawful, (2) mainstream to an extent, (3) not dangerous and (4) more than sexual just as any family environment is more than simply sexual.

Teaching children tolerance is not something that the government or television should shy away from. Children will inevitable meet gay individuals; it is not a mark of shame or dishonor. It is a way of life, to quote Seinfeld, "not that there is anything wrong with it." Parents may often disagree with the messages depicted on television, but that is not a reason for television to be censored. Disagreement is protected by the First Amendment. Religious bigotry does not trump the power to air tolerance.

Epic Battle: Creationism v. ID

2005-02-21T11:26:00.000-05:00

I'm pretty sure this isn't a sarcastic piece, but here is a Creationist's attack on Intelligent Design from the Kansas City Pitch, which appears to be a hip publication in Kansas City. Their KC Strip column is touted as "the sirloin of Kansas City media, a critical cut of surmisin' steak that each week weighs in on the issues of the day, dictating its column to Pitch managing editor Tony Ortega."

Some choice (nonconsecutive) words from this debate:

The people pushing intelligent design are godless interlopers who want our children taught that the Bible got things wrong.
As far as they're concerned, the good book is just a bunch of fairy tales.

Nope, these ID-olators don't have much respect for the holy word. They suggest that the Earth is billions of years old and that animals have evolved pretty much the way Charles Darwin described more than a century ago.

For these folks of little faith, science answers most of the world's mysteries, explaining the history of the universe and the proliferation of life on Earth. The girlie-man God they worship steps in only to fill in small gaps in scientific knowledge and to lend a gentle helping hand in ways that cannot be measured, tested or debunked.

ID wussies stepped up one after another to talk about the "weaknesses" in biological evolution, the "controversies" that they wanted their children to hear about.

The complete surrender of religion to the onslaught of science was a pathetic sight.

"It's pitiful. But what can I do?" she told this curious cutlet. "It's not that difficult to understand the Earth being 6,000 years old. But they [the ID crowd] tell me it's an incremental program."
An incremental program. Johnson was referring to people such as lawyer John Calvert [of the Intelligent Design Network] and University of Missouri-Kansas City med-school professor William Harris [also of the Intelligent Design Network], who have spearheaded the Kansas school effort with a Johnson County organization they call theIntelligent Design Network. Johnson claimed that the ID bigwigs assured her they have the same ultimate goal that she does -- to get religion into science classes -- and that ID allows them to take small, less controversial steps toward that goal.

"With media opposition, you can only go so far," she admitted. And for people like her who still believe in the Bible's origin story, she said, "It's a step back." But the ID people with whom she has allied herself are deluding themselves if they think they're doing heaven a favor with their "incremental" program. "They are not getting the whole picture, and they are not pleasing Jesus Christ, who is God," Johnson reminded us. "If you don't believe parts of the Bible, why are you calling yourself a Christian?"

So ID is a religious perspective, but the creationists who wrote this, don't believe so. Inter-religious right arguments are always fun.

Bible Classes in VA

2005-02-17T11:43:00.000-05:00

The AP on Tuesday reported that the Staunton, VA school board has decided to continue holding Bible classes in school while it evaluates the 60-year old tradition. The program, according to the Washington Post, has first-, second- annd third-graders leaving the school building and taking a class trip of sorts to the local Baptist Church where they spent 30 minutes having religious lessons and singing religious songs.

The school board's review has come as some parents have expressed opposition to a Christian outreach program in the schools. In response, head of a religious group said that if the school board ends the program, there will be electoral repercussions.

I've discussed before local preferences for shaping education. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld this kind of system before in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), relying a lot on the fact that students weren't forced to participate and that school monies weren't being used for religious education.

Too me, those two issues are not the key factors in determining the legality of a program like this. When schools and religion clash, the key factors should be attribution to the school, endorsement, public funding (although not as a necessary feature of an unconsitutional program) and the placement of the program in a secular education. Quite frankly, and I won't dwell on it, but any program that takes children from the classroom in the middle of the day and brings them to church for a religious lesson runs afoul of the Establishment Clause's mandates of neutrality and separation. Even if students aren't forced to participate, they will feel pressured to do so and take part in the religious program. And just as important, while the public may face no direct financial costs, there are certainly time costs and opportunity costs associated with delaying lessons and teaching other subjects than necessary.

This other-subject argument is not really a great argument given the deference that local boards should be given to determine their curricula. The delaying lessons argument is. For the 30-minutes that the majority of the class is at church, do you think that the "remainder" children are in class learning their geometry or sitting around idle? I can't imagine that the remainders were learning and getting ahead in their geometry to the detriment of their church-going classmates.

This program, no matter what, strikes of First Amendment concerns, regardless of the deference owed to school board to control their education and the desire of parents to want this programs. If these parents want their children to have religious education, let them do it outside the involvement of the state. Once the state gets invovled, there are too many factors at play that will make everyone unhappy.

Lost in this is that the school has decided for Baptist education. Are there unhappy Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc? Another reason why the government and schools should stay out of religious education. Too much picking and choosing among equally-valuable beliefs.

Little side note: One of the complaints of the opposing parents is that the Bible study time removes time from the classroom that could otherwise be spent having students studying to meet their national tests. Two conservative battles against each other. Ironic.

More Texas Fun

2005-02-15T14:53:00.000-05:00

From the Texas state constitution:

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Does this clause contradict itself? It means that only theists can hold office in Texas yet it isn't a "religious test" to "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being"? Dick Cheney could hold office in Texas, notwithstanding he's from Wyoming, kind of. He acknowledged the existence of the Supreme Being of Halliburton.

Bush Priorities

2005-02-10T13:54:00.000-05:00

From the LA Times about Bush's budget proposal:

President Bush's new budget would cut some traditional aid for the poor in such areas as housing and health coverage.

At the same time, some religion-based programs that promote such goals as sexual abstinence and marriage and provide mentors for at-risk children would enjoy increased federal aid.

I understand that as a Republican, Pres. Bush supports smaller government with less social welfare programs. I disagree with that view, but fine. My chief problem here is that he obviously doesn't prefer small government, he prefers government programs that carry a religiously-oriented message. Abstinence and marriage counseling and mentors for at-risk children are great goals. Housing and health care, however, are more important to people and must be established first. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If we have limited resources, they should be spent most efficiently on the problems most needing attention. Housing and health coverage are those needs.

Cutting programs while still feeding the Religious Right's goals is not a successful gameplan.

Law or Science

2005-02-10T10:44:00.000-05:00

In regards to the notion that "evolution is true and observed fact, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that other reasons are at play here" (quoted from a friend with whom I've argued this point). A large portion of this debate focuses on the nature of scientific theory. The problem with intelligent design is that it presumes a creator which cannot be measured by scientific theory. Therefore, that is the realm of religion. Religion, by definition, is immeasurable and exists in faith. No one can prove that God/Creator didn't cause evolution, much like no one can prove that God didn't cause the Patriots to beat the Eagles. (for an interesting take on the subject, see http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/8173992 and scroll down to the middle under "the Nielsen Ratings..." It's an NFL columnist who happens also to be a political commentator, Greg Easterbrook).

My problem with intelligent design in the classroom is that it takes a scientific theory, evolution, and puts a non-scientific deity into the equation. Putting the deity into the equation makes this religion. Students should be taught scientific facts and understandings and weaknesses of theory (where age-appropriate) not that God fills in the gaps of theories.

Behe writes that ID "says nothing about the religious concept of a creator." But, the intelligent designer must be a "thing" more powerful than man (as our genetic engineering talents aren't THAT good yet). Whether it is the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha (I know next to nothing about Buddha as deity, so please don't call me on that) or George the All-Powerful, the Intelligent Designer is, by defintion, some sort of diety and therefore inherently religious. That means that it should stay out of the classroom.

I didn't want to make my blog into a scientific discussion. You can never prove that God/Intelligent Designer had no hand in evolution for the belief often is that God played his hand within the constructs of the laws that govern the physical world. But that notion is innately religious. Public education should stay within the confines of traditional science - science and conclusions that can be measured through traditional means and the scientific processes.

ID is a "rival theory" (?)

2005-02-07T23:47:00.000-05:00

The NYTimes ran an op-ed by Prof. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, today. He is one of the top mainstream scientists that accept intelligent design. I don't really have anything creative to say on this that I haven't already, so I'm going to cut and paste from Pharyngula, a blog by a University of Minnesota-Morris biology professor:

From the very first sentence, Michael Behe’s op-ed in today’s NY Times is an exercise in unwarranted hubris.
In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design.

And it’s all downhill from there.

Intelligent Design creationism is not a “rival theory.” It is an ad hoc pile of mush, and once again we catch a creationist using the term “theory” as if it means “wild-ass guess.” I think a theory is an idea that integrates and explains a large body of observation, and is well supported by the evidence, not a random idea about untestable mechanisms which have not been seen. I suspect Behe knows this, too, and what he is doing is a conscious bait-and-switch. See here, where he asserts that there is evidence for ID:

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims.

This is where he first pulls the rug over the reader’s eyes. He claims the Intelligent Design guess is based on physical evidence, and that he has four lines of argument; you’d expect him to then succinctly list the evidence, as was done in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the talkorigins site. He doesn’t. Not once in the entire op-ed does he give a single piece of this “physical evidence.” Instead, we get four bald assertions, every one false.

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.

He then tells us that Mt Rushmore is designed, and the Rocky Mountains aren’t. How is this an argument for anything? Nobody is denying that human beings design things, and that Mt Rushmore was carved with intelligent planning. Saying that Rushmore was designed does not help us resolve whether the frond of a fern is designed....

Behe began this op-ed by telling us that he was going to give us the contemporary argument for Intelligent Design creationism, consisting of four linked claims. Here’s a shorter Behe for you:

The evidence for Intelligent Design.

It’s obvious.
It’s obvious!
Evolutionary explanations are no good.
There aren’t any good evolutionary explanations.

That’s it.

That’s pathetic.

Back to me: Religion has often been used to substitute when the bounds of scientific explanation are reached. To simply say, "Intelligent Design must be true because science cannot explain" is to chicken out and be impatient. Whatever holes exist in evolutionary theory are more likely explained by scientific theories not yet understood than by intelligent design. Scientific knowledge has not reached its full potential. There will always be room for religion because there are always unanswered questions. To simply say that religion is needed here, is to give up on the scientific pursuit for a theory with no physical evidence.

___________________
Post-script: Letters to the editor about the original Behe article.

Afraid to Teach

2005-02-04T13:46:00.000-05:00

Tuesday's (Feb. 1) Science Times featured an article detailing science teachers' fears of teaching evolution. It was not so much that they disagreed with the theory, but that they were afraid of the repercussions of schoolboards, administrators and parents to teaching the curriculum. Indeed, evolution was part of the textbooks and the materials to be taught. These teachers, however, within their discretion, excised evolution from the classroom. Additionally, evolution where assigned may not be discussed. Often, the article states, evolution is the first subject removed from an overflowing curriculum.

Teachers should be left with discretion over what they will teach. Certain complex subjects can be ignored. A bedrock theory to science, such as evolution, should remain in the curricula, however.

This should not be a large-term issue. The free market will solve the problem of sending unprepared students off to college. Several high school generations from now, when Anytown, Red State hasn't "bred" a doctor or a scientist, evolution will return, as I've previously written about. The free market idea works better here than in mandating the teaching of intelligent design. There is no constitutional right to be taught evolution, only a constitutional right not to be taught intelligent design.

In the short term, we still have a problem then and I see two solutions. First, adminstrators and school boards should protect and defend their teachers when teachers probably perform their duties. Adminstrators must support teachers' imparting appropriate knowledge on their students and should not punish teachers who teach evolution.

Additionally, a greater issue in society is ignorance of constitutional rights. People do not know what they are entitled to. As this article points out, high school students are believe that the First Amendment does not protect flag burning (it does, see Texas v. Johnson) nor do students believe that the media should be free from pre-publication censorship (that is the crux of the Freedom of the Press, as enunciated in the Pentagon Papers case, US v. NY Times). If people were aware of their constitutional liberties, they would not so easily wave them. We are free from unreasonable search and seizure, free from censorship, free from cruel and unusual punishment. Most important to here, however, we are free to teach bedrock scientific theories even when people disagree with them on religious grounds.

Teachers teach with impunity. Impart knowledge. Share science.

Guest Blogger: My Body, My Creation, My Evolution

2005-02-03T13:12:00.000-05:00

Ahh, El Cep, I admit it, I’m a straight woman, and I’m in love with Maureen Dowd. Yes, I am aware that she isn’t the most neutral/objective of writers out there, but really how can you not adore her? Take today’s column for example, that you so wonderfully refer to, few columnists questioning the relationship between religion and the public purse would be brave enough to ask, “Do male nipples prove evolution?” But, Ms. Dowd does just this, and in the process asks us to wonder: can Americans ever accept Evolution and Creation, can we embrace advancements made in science and still have faith? If James Carville can marry a conservative, can’t Science and Religion learn to get along in America?

You might be wondering just who I am… so let me tell you. I am like so many. I am not a scientist, but I was brought up in public schools that taught evolution, I studied for my biology exams, learned what a molecule was, dissected a worm and a frog, and learned about Darwin’s experiences on the Galapagos Islands. But, twice a week, I also had a religious education. In these classes, I studied the Bible, I internalized the 10 Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, I was taught why there are seven days and what God did on each one, and I learned about Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. Even more than most, I attended religious summer camps where I prayed daily. And, yet, I easily embrace both science and religion in my daily life, while my darling politicians continue to bicker back and forth about the correct answer.

Even putting aside all my beliefs about the necessity for a republican form of government that separates church from state, I still am missing the logic that so many put forth to quash the study and advancement of science in our country. I often wonder what it would be like to have a conversation about this with Sen. Bill Frist. After all, one has to expect, that even this declared man of faith, but who has a medical degree and who practiced as a surgeon for years has found a way to allow both of these worlds into his own. Would he agree with the statement in the Creation Museum that Ms. Dowd quotes that “‘The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible's clear - heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards. Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all! God's Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There's no room for compromise.’”? Or, would he agree, I can still be a woman of faith, while acknowledging, male nipples prove evolution?

W on Evolution

2005-02-03T10:49:00.000-05:00

From the 2000 election campaign (sorry to be 5 years late): "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth." From here and reraised as an issue in Mo Dowd.

Cep's brief introduction to science's view of creation and time after that. If time 0 is the moment when the universe/world/everything was born and therefore time 1 is everything after, then time 1 through today is fairly understood to be explained through the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. Granted these theories have many gaps that new scientific advances explain, but for the most part these theories provide the broad explanations that will stand up as the foundation of future developments.

Time 0 is religion. Science can explain what happened once the Big Bang happened. It cannot explain how the energy and mass got into a concentrated focal point. But Time 0 is very different than Time 0.00000000000001. One is left for religion (and maybe science can one day address it) and the other is already explained by science.

Confusing the issues is the problems that confront right-wing fundamentalists who are scared of evolution in the schools. The truth is never a bad thing.

Cheney's Attire

2005-02-03T01:00:00.000-05:00

Nice of VP Cheney to wear a suit at the State of the Union. Compare that with his trip to Auschwitz (granted it was cold, but that didn't stop the rest of the dignitaries from dressing appropriately).

Jurisdiction-Stripping, right-wing style

2005-02-02T13:44:00.000-05:00

Among the Family Research Council's legislative goals for 2005, is to pass three laws that would strip from federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving "Under God" in the Pledge (Pledge Protection Act), "In God we trust" as the national motto (Religious Liberties Restoration Act) and certain Defense of Marriage issues (Marriage Protection Act), respectively. These laws would strip federal courts of jurisdiction, but not state courts. Currently, both sets of courts can hear federal issues. These laws would limit that to only state courts.

The major issues that these present is leaving it up to state courts to decide constitutional decisions, as laid out here by Prof. Marci Hamilton of Cardozo Law School. There would be fifty interpretations of what the First Amendment says viz. the Pledge. Unity of what the law means is why we have a hierarchical legal structure. When states or circuits disagree on matters of federal law, then the higher, appellate body can step in and decide the case so as to apply the law uniformly to all (whether rightly or wrongly decided). Of course, this means that it is better to have a uniform application than having some places right and some wrong. Can you imagine if North Dakota ruled that the Pledge violated the Constitution but that South Dakota ruled that the Pledge was consistent with the Constitution? The Dakota division that would ensue!!

Additionally, Congress cannot oversee the state courts and has no impact on it. There are institutional pressures that Congress can place on the federal courts (affecting budgets, number of judges, disbanding, etc.) that Congress cannot exercise over state courts. Reversely, it means that Congress has no check against itself. The Courts cannot tell Congress when it is misbehaving or overstepping its bounds because so many courts would come have to speak on the issue. When 25 courts say one thing and 25 say the other, does Congress change its action? Or does federal law simply cease to exist in that state? Given that federal law is the supreme law of the land (when state and federal law conflict, federal law wins), is it appropriate for state courts to be the final arbiters on federal law within their jurisdiction?

Lastly, this is bad policy. Federal courts are not the enemy. Congress needs a check; they must not be allowed to overstep their boundaries. To remove this check may give Congress free reign in certain areas. And this sets bad precedent. When Congress wants to act outside their Constitutional-limits, should it just strip the check against it and do whatever it wants? Congress must play by the rules, when it's both right and wrong.

____________________
From an anonymous commenter: The Dakota division? How about the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance, like the national anthem and our very constitution, binds us as a nation. Allowing
states to modify such prose is the beginning of the division of a nation struggling to maintain a common mind and mission.

Teaching Tolerance

2005-01-25T15:07:00.000-05:00

In reading, Dobson and the Focus on the Family's response to attacks about its view on SpongeBob, I was left thinking about something. I don't think that the schools should be teaching religious-moral values, but only secular-moral values. Therefore, schools should teach that stealing is wrong, not because the Ten Commandments says so, but because there are legitimate, secular problems with permitting stealing.

Dobson's big problem with the SpongeBob video is that it teaches tolerance of homosexuality, in contrast to his religious dictates. He writes:

While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.
We believe that it is the privilege of parents to decide how, when and where it is appropriate to introduce their children to these types of sensitive issues. The distribution of this video trumps the authority of mothers and fathers and leaves it in the hands of strangers whose standards may very well be different than the children they teach.

Fair enough, right? Actually, no. The point of public education is that parents relinquish some educational control to professional experts (i.e. teachers) in return for a more well-founded education (my parents could not each calculus). Public teachers are responsible for instilling public values, including, but not limited to patriotism (including critical looks at America where age-appropriate), social norms against stealing, etc. and finally, tolerance. But there are two types of tolerance, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Mozert v. Hawkins. There is a political tolerance and a private tolerance.

Political tolerance is the necessary tolerance in a civil society so as to maintain peace and encourage political discourse among different viewpoints. Private tolerance is what a person feels in his own life that may or may not be abhorrent to a liberal society. Therefore, evangelical Christians need not exhibit a private tolerance towards homosexuality. Churches and individuals are free to gay-bash (whether they should is a different question).

They may not, however, curtail a political tolerance. Gays have every right to participate in the political discourse as any other individual.

How does this relate to Dobson's statements? Schools are limited in that they must teach political tolerance and cannot tread in the area of private, religious tolerance. Schools must accept all and teach students to accept all. SpongeBob's message of inclusion is perfectly appropriate for schools.

Think of this applied to another setting. What if is a hypothetical, Bobson of the Gocus on the Gamily, had problems not with gays, but with blacks? Would we as a society accept his calls for removing tolerance towards blacks from the school curriculum? I would hope not. Same issue.

Oscar Nods

2005-01-25T09:36:00.000-05:00

Final Scores:

Fahrenheit 9/11: 0
Passion of the Christ: 3

I guess Hollywood is dominated by left-wing, anti-Christian liberals.

Baseball Terrorists

2005-01-21T11:55:00.000-05:00

A follow-up to my previous terrorist entry. The Florida Senate President called the Florida Marlins' tactics in demanding a new stadium "terrorist tactics." "I thought that we already appropriated money to help them move to Vegas," he said. "I was very disappointed that they publicly announced the negotiations and discussions with Las Vegas, and I don't negotiate with terrorists."

Story here.

Think the word "terrorist" is losing its meaning when anti-creationists and the Florida Marlins are both referred to like that? It does a disservice to the American debate.

SpongeBob: From Underwater to Hell

2005-01-21T09:03:00.000-05:00

The Christian Right is attacking SpongeBob because he is being featured in a tolerance video. Stories here and here. Mr. SquarePants, it appears, is tolerant, much to the chagrin of the American Family Association and because of this tolerance, is gay. Included in these outbreaks of tolerance/homosexuality are holding hands with his friend Patrick and watching his favorite tv show, Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy.

The crux of the issue is the maker of this video. It is being produced by the We Are Family Foundation, a post-9/11 tolerance organization. It is not to be confused with We Are Family, a gay-tolerance organization.

As www.toonzone.net wrote: "First they came for the Teletubbies and I did nothing, because I hate mewling horribles who live in Orwellian romper rooms. But then they came for SpongeBob SquarePants. Now it's time to march."

I have nothing more to say on this. I am speechless; I am without speech.

Guess the Religious Right is anti-tolerance (and research to distinguish their "enemy" (gay tolerance) from good values (general tolerance).

Dems should be Dems

2005-01-20T11:29:00.000-05:00

In a speech in Boston, Sen. Hillary Clinton proclaimed her support for faith-based social service programs. The speech was to an organization that took religious approaches to social problems. In it, Sen. Clinton claimed that "there is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." Additionally, a "false division" between the separation of church and state and faith-based initiatives. Lastly, Clinton stated that religious people must be able to "live out their faith in the public square."

Each of these in turn, backwards.

Indeed, the Free Exercise Clause guarantees that all people should be able to live out their faith in the public square, whatever that faith may be, religious or secular, so long as the "living out" is done without the aid of the government or the appearance of government sponsorship. Government sponsored parades or publicly-owned town squares are not places for government-sponsored religion, but for secular displays.

Second, there is a very possible contradiction between government funding of religious organizations for social programming and the dictates of the First Amendment. Pre-Bush 2, the government would regularly provide money to religious organizations for social programming. These organizations, however, had set up subsidiaries that operated the welfare program and was not involved in the religious aspect of the organization. Federal money to nonreligious faith-based religious programs. Bush got rid of the distinction and allowed federal money to flow to the proslytizing arm of religious organizations.

The potential for constitutional violations here is obvious. If an organziation proslytizes in providing social support services, then the government should not help them, as doing so would violate the prohibition of the Establishment Clause. Government money should go to the most efficient supplier of welfare services so long as the organization does not use the money to proslytize.

Faith-based charity programs are highly effective, no doubt. Part of Alcoholics Anonymous's success is certainly its religious-nature. Government should recognize that without funding it. If a religious organization wants federal funds, it should disassociate its charitable arm from its religious arm, as the Constitution dictates.

Last, the subject of the title. Dems aren't dems because they are Republicans Lite. Dems should stand by their morals and values and not interfere with the wrongness that has descended over America. Dems will not survive by imitating the ignorant, but by standing up for what is right and just.

Abortion Euphemisms

2005-01-20T10:35:00.000-05:00

I love the titles that the rightwing calls fetuses in the abortion battle. While I won't comment on the merits of the debate, I will mock the verbiage.

From the Focus on the Family: Planned Parenthood's "annual report finds 34 percent of its income came from killing the preborn." See here.

My one point: Is "killing the preborn" like selling short a stock? You know, like getting rid of something before you have it?

Thank you, I'm here every Saturday night.

Free Market Science

2005-01-15T19:24:00.000-05:00

If creationists or intelligent design supporters "win" and either get evolution struck from biology classes or have creationism/ID taught equally with evolution, what is the harm? Students in those districts will have substandard biology educations. They will go off to colleges and be in a worse position than their classmates. Those who choose to become doctors or scientists will have difficulties grasping the true scientific belief of evolution and of scientific method (Scientific methods - independent testing of hypotheses - do not support these two theories).

These students will learn that they cannot be successful in those fields. Their parents will understand that the nature of the miseducation harms them in the long run and will complain to the school boards. The school boards will return to the curricula to the traditional teaching of evolution. All will be fine. This will not affect me. The marginal loss of these potential doctors or scientists is not significant to society at large. The free market will cure this whole dilemma.

Or will it?

I believe economic analysis is a good tool for evaluating law. Free market assumptions work and are valuable methods. Except, in constutional law. The Constitution makes absolute bars and cares not about the free market or efficiency. it says "no law..." not "no inefficient law..."

So while the free market may cure the problem of evolution-bashing in the schools, the Constitution's prohibition on government endoresement of religion and the accompanying legislating with religious purposes mandates that neither creationism nor ID shall be taught in schools and that evolution will not be removed from classrooms because of religious objections.

Atheists Need Not Apply

2005-01-13T20:31:00.000-05:00

El Presidente: I don't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord."

Supreme Court: "[N]either a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs... [A] religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades [a person's] freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him." Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494-496 (1961).

I think the value of religion which W. espouses is that it teaches humility - after all, there is something greater and larger. Our President, though apparently a believer, has not learned this lesson of humility. See, e.g., Iraq, Kyoto Treaty, tax refunds, future tax proposals, dissension and many other areas. Humility is a great trait, when believed.

Sticker Shock

2005-01-13T17:46:00.000-05:00

It's not easy coming up with Blog titles, I'll be honest about that.

Anyway, today, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that Cobb County's inclusion of stickers in biology textbooks violated the textbook. This stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The plaintiffs were a group of parents offended by their school board's decision. See story here.

Stickers are the latest tool for Creationists and IDers (see entry here) to deny science. It's nice that a judge recognized that this decision was guided by religion and therefore violates the Establishment Clause.

Evolution is as much as theory as any other scientific hypothesis. Until Creationists want to start questioning gravity, as firmly established as evolution, then they should lay off evolution. Contrary to what anti-evolutionists argue, evolution is firmly established in the science liturgy and texts. While the details are still being analyzed (as is the case with all areas of sceince), the fact that evolution has occurred is indisputable.

The Texas GOP Platform

2005-01-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

A few choice tidbits, taken from here, or in the complete pdf version here.

"Any candidate running as a Republican for any public office should be required to complete and return to the County Republican Party Platform questionnaire indicating whether the candidate agrees, disagrees or is undecided on each plank of the current platform. We strongly urge the Executive Campaign Committee to consider candidates' support of the Party platform when granting financial or other support." (p. 5)
"Our Party pledges to exert its influence to...dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State." (p. 8)
"The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..." (p. 8)
"Until such time as such unconstitutional spending programs of our federal government are repealed, we believe that the faith-based initiative as proposed by President George W. Bush, and currently implemented, should continue to receive federal monies." (p. 8) - Read this to mean that despite being unconstitutional, secular welfare program monies should be funneled towards religious causes.

I wonder if any federal officers that we know have been or are members of the Texas GOP or have run for Texas office as a Republican? Anyone?

Science = Al Qaida

2005-01-12T16:01:00.000-05:00

According to Salon, in supporting a bill to have Missouri biology classes include theories of "Intelligent Design," Rep. Cynthia Davis declared that, "It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go." Furthermore, "I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back." Full story, here.

She's right on with her point. I mean, the Constitution really prevents this country from exploring its full potential. Because of the prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion and the need for a separation of church and state, our theocracy can not flower. The Founding Fathers would not have wanted this. They wanted a theocracy. The Bill of Rights was just a joke. The Rights weren't funny, but humor wasn't really developed in the 18th Century.

Let's get rid of the Constitution and formally establish this theocracy. Then we can have creationism, er, "intelligent design" taught in public schools. The difference between Intelligent Design and full-blown, traditional creationism is the nod and wink when the "Intelligent Designer" is discussed as opposed to creationism where everyone knows who the "Creator" is (the Big Man). A rose called by any other name is still a rose; creationism called by any other name is still unconstitutional.

I read something once about the downfall of the meaning of the word "literally." That no one really means "literally" when they say the word. I think it was a Steve Rushin of Sports Illustrated, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, his point was that by using "literally" incorrectly and when the reference is not literal, "literally" has lost its meaning. The moral of the story? Keep Al Qaida references and hijacking references to the tragedies that they are. Comparing the preservation of a Constitutionally-mandated society with the greatest attack on American is an insult to those who lost their lives.

NOTE: For a discussion and definition of Intelligent Design, see here: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
This site is a pro-ID site, so its not exactly neutral. The front page gives a neat little definition and explanation though.

Topic Hunting

2005-01-11T13:22:00.000-05:00

It's not easy after Christmas season to find some good religious topics to write about. I try not to be reactionary but to seek out some good material to comment on. So dear reader, I will have some stuff. I am constantly searching out what is big in the news, looking at Robertson's 700 Club as well as the rightwing newsmax.com. Don't worry, I'll find some good materials soon.

In the meantime, the Mets have signed Carlos Beltran to a 7-year, $119 million contract. I hate Scott Boras, not excited that the Mets have another Boras client, but am excited to have Beltran in the lineup. I fear he's going to be a beacon of hope in an otherwise desert of despair, but he'll be fun to watch as the Mets stink. He's a top player and unlike Pedro, his arm won't fall off anytime soon.

My best-case Pedro scenario:

Game 1 - No-hitter
Game 2 - Right arm falls off, career over.

Let's go Mets...

Goldman Meets the MTA

2005-01-06T18:56:00.000-05:00

In Goldman v. Weinberger, the Supreme Court ruled that the military's interest in uniformity is of sufficient concerns to curtail an Orthodox Jew's right to wear a yarmulke. The interest in national security was compelling even if there were no functional impairments in Goldman's duties.

Today's New York Newsday reports that the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has threatened to demote a Sikh subway operator, Kevin Harrington, unless he agrees to put the MTA logo on his turban. Part of the official MTA uniform is a hat with the MTA logo on it. However, many MTA operators often do not wear the requisite logo on their hats. Additionally, Harrington has worn a logo-less turban for 25 years with NYC Transit. I don't know how he went from NYC Transit to the MTA. Harrington has a joined a suit with several female Muslim bus drivers who have not been allowed to wear religious scarves while on duty. Harrington has relented somewhat by agreeing to wear a turban that matches the MTA uniform.

Harrington has Constitutional rights to practice his religion unless the state has a compelling interest in curtailing it. If Harrington's religion beliefs prevented him from wearing any identifying clothing, that could be an issue. But, Harrington seeks not to wear a logo on his religious garb. Many of his coworkers (including an operator I saw today on the subway) don't wear the logo on their caps. There is no compelling state interest to curtail Harrington's Free Exercise Rights. The MTA does not have the same interests in uniformity that the Supreme Court noted in Goldman.

If his logo-less adversely affects his performance in any measurable way, then he should have to wear a logo. This, however, is not the case here. Let his turban remain a religious symbol, not a mark of advertising.

The article mentions a couple of NYPD officers who have been allowed to wear turbans and beards, provided that they put NYPD patches on their turbans. These cases are very distinguishable. There is a huge difference between an NYPD and his badge and an MTA operator and the logo. The NYPD patch presents to the public that this man is a police officer in an emergency and visible manner. The MTA operator does not have similar issues.

But there is no ACLU in south Asia

2005-01-05T15:39:00.000-05:00

Rev. Jerry Falwell (who has millions of followers), 2 days after the September 11th attack:

"I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen."

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist."

Quick question: Does Jerry Falwell think that the Pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, ACLU, People for the American Way were responsible for the tsunami and the 150,000+ people killed? The nations affected are very religious (just not so Christian). I guess God was getting them back too?

Lesbian Minister Defrocked

2005-01-05T15:29:00.000-05:00

This happened a month ago, so sorry I'm late reporting it.

The Methodist Church has defrocked a 34-year old associate pastor who was an out-of-the-closet lesbian. Bravo to the Methodists for doing this. There is a clear prohibition against homosexuality in the Bible and the Methodists are within their rights for firing a clergy member who violates this prohibition. I support this move only insofar as it reflects religious autonomy.

The proper method for those opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons is to take care of it in their religious venues. If you don't think your religion approves of homosexuality, do not let gays into your religion. Our government, on the other hand, should not and can not make such decisions. Everyone is allowed into our system. In fact, the Constitution protects inclusion. So when certain Republican Congressional candidates (and now Congressmembers) decry homosexuality, they should stick to their churches, not their governments.

I do not feel that the pastor has any recourse under our employment discrimination laws. The Church should be allowed to discriminate against their membership so it reflects their viewpoint of what the Bible says. That is what the Free Exercise Clause protects. Sorry, Republicans, the Free Exercise Clause does not protect the government from performing similar actions. Therefore, sexuality should be a protected class. Government should not be able to discriminate at all, except in terms of merit.

I'll discuss the value of a meritocracy some other time.

Jesus was a Strict-Constructionist

2005-01-02T13:26:00.000-05:00

The New York Times is reporting that Dr. James Dobson of the Focus on the Family has written a letter to members warning them that certain Senate Democrats are fillibustering Pres. Bush's conservative nominees to various federal courts. Dr. Dobson also emphasizes the need for the appointment of strict constructionist judges, those who read the Constitution very literally.

I don't understand how a socially-active Christian organization really cares about the interpretative theory of judges. I appreciate that Dobson doesn't want judges who approve personally of abortion. And I'll grant that the words abortion do not appear in the Constitution. But strict-constructionism versus the Brennan "Living Constitution" approach are not really liberal versus conservative issues. A strict-constructionist may read "Equal Protection of the laws" to include, gasp, all groups, no matter what. Or, they may read the Second Amendment as only applying to legally-recognized "militias" and therefore, not include private citizens.

All the talk of activist judges makes me realize that an "activist" judge is just one with whom you disagree. Scalia and Thomas are as "activist" as Brennan and Douglas ever were, just the opposite way.

Happy New Year.

Friday Night Football

2004-12-24T16:05:00.000-05:00

Don't have much time to write, so I'll leave you with this.

The NFL, traditionally played only on Sundays and Mondays until after the college football season ends, has given us this year a Christmas Eve game. Can't the NFL just let the players and all team, network and stadium staff have a night off? Christmas is a night for family and while I will be enjoying watching Christmas Story for the next 24 hours, let people have their time off. Please NFL, next year, sacrifice being able to have no competition for a nice respite from working.

Merry Christmas

2004-12-23T18:03:00.000-05:00

I want to wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas (hi Mom). Listening to the radio today, I heard "Little Drummer Boy" and "Do You Hear What I Hear?" and was thinking, these songs are about the Baby Jesus and what it represents. Namely, when Jesus was born, he brought with him hope and promise of peace and love. In fact, Christmas season is about those ideas - the hope for a better tomorrow. During WWI, there are famous stories about the German and Russian armies stopping their fighting and playing soccer on Christmas Day. That 24 hour truce was supposed to represent the inherent goodness of man.

I happen to disagree. I think that the 24 hour truce represents the hypocrisy of man. If we were really to remember the lessons of Christmas, there would be peace, love and especially, tolerance, not only on Christmas Day or even Christmas season, but on the other 364 days of the year.

Our President, a very religious man, should not be just thinking about ideas that the Baby Jesus represents on December 25. Every day, he should think about these ideals, for they do not exist in a single-day vaccuum.

One of the causes I think of the religious "battles" featured on (and created by) Fox News over the past few months and years is that Christianity has turned from a religion thinking about the Baby Jesus ideals and towards a religious focused on Mel Gibson's Jesus. They do not have to be distinct. But when people concentrate on the suffering of Jesus, they are seeing the hole and not the doughnut. If Jesus suffered, for what did he suffer? Surely, he did not suffer so that a religious war of intolerance and theocracy would be created. He suffered promoting love, tolerance and peace.

If the President is truly religious, he should be questioning why we're in Iraq, why Rumsfeld sent the Army there without the proper munitions and what we want to accomplish. Being guided by religious morals is not bad when they are universal and inclusive. It is bad when it is divisive and exclusionary (see Islamic theocracies and the US by Jan. 19, 2009).

Merry Christmas to all my readers, again. May this year's day of love and tolerance extend past midnight and reach into our hearts for the whole year.

Whoa Mo!

2004-12-23T18:00:00.000-05:00

I love her, and there is some truth to it. I wouldn't go as far as she has said. Afterall, the Supreme Court hasn't heard any religion cases in a while (though they will in a few months).

Without further ado, Maureen Dowd: "[Iraqis] may choose to live in a theocracy, though. Americans did."

Newdow gets North

2004-12-19T15:35:00.000-05:00

Hannity & Colmes went to Cupertino, CA two weeks ago to do a story about the teacher there. The highlight was Oliver North and Michael Newdow discussing whether "In God we trust" or "Under God" is really offensive. North asked Newdow how it offends him for coins proclaim "In God we trust" or the pledge to include "Under God." While Newdow didn't answer the question directly, he did turn the table on North. Newdow asked North whether it would offend him if money said, "In God we don't trust" or "God stinks." North said of course it would offend him.

This is the crux of the argument. Government should remain neutral. It would offend me if the government proclaimed "God stinks." It is not the government's place to be arguing religion. But the same thing goes for government saying, "In God we trust." Government should not be saying that God is good or bad, that He should be trusted or that he stinks. Let the individual decide, not the government.

____________________

Note: I have turned off allowing anonymous comments. I will turn it back on, but will be removing comments to the general theme of "Mel Gibson is Jesus."

I am not a Christian-basher

2004-12-17T01:06:00.000-05:00

Despite my posts, as interpreted by those commenting on it, I believe that Christianity has very valuable tenets to offer society at large. I apologize if I've been perceived as anti-Christian, I support the beauty of that religion as I would any other religion.

Listed below are some basic tenents of Christianity that I find particularly beautiful, some of which are missing from the most vocal religious leaders. I am sorry that I do not have a more developed knowledge of Christianity, as I have little Christian education.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" - The ultimate statement of tolerance. This teaches that we should accept our neighbors even when they are different for no one is perfect.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." - Man was not put in this world for war but to coexist with other man. Peace is the ultimate end of loving thy neighbor.
Separate the sin from the sinner
"Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you," Matthew 5:42
Charity, Luke 16:19-26

I also could not understand why "moral values" as discussed in this past election do not include:

Health Care
Welfare, poverty solutions and generally caring for the poor
Tax reforms that are not highly regressive, but put the most onus on those who can most afford it.
Realistic solutions to problems (there are more abortions under Bush's "Abstinence Only" programs than under other sexual education programs).
Peace and acceptance of religious tolerance.
Opposition to an offensive war against a country that served no threat to America.

I hope this clears the air.

Jews are against Jesus??

2004-12-16T11:27:00.000-05:00

Thus saith Catholic League President, William Donahue on MSNBC's Scarborough Show on why the Passion of the Christ wasn't nominated for any Golden Globes, despite being the third top-grossing movie of the year: "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

YAHOO!!! The head of the Catholic League is starting a religious war and reiterating that Jews run the world. Is there anything more exciting?

The reason why the HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS has not recognized the Passion for an award was that the movie was not award-worthy. Perhaps, they, gasp, evaluated the movie on the merits. According to RottenTomatoes.com, only 51% of critics enjoyed the movie. Could that have something to do with the lack of award nominations?

Or perhaps, the top-grossing films are also the best. Then we should be complaining about the dearth of nominations for Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2. But I gather no one cares because they are "Jewish" movies(?).

Regardless, the reason why the Passion wasn't nominated for any Golden Globes was that it wasn't all that good. I did see it and just believed it was a series of violent vignettes. They weren't tied together. The audience, without knowing more, didn't know for what Jesus was suffering. The movie was just too much and it wasn't tasteful "too much." It just wasn't one of of the best movies of the year.

So please, Mr. Donohue, would you keep the religious warfare to a minimum. We can all get along, if you stop talking stupid.

Anonymous Comment

2004-12-15T21:10:00.000-05:00

To the person who left an anonymous comment, please repost it. Thank you. I apologize for deleting it.

Crisis in California

2004-12-15T13:56:00.000-05:00

A 5th grade history teacher in Cupertino, CA has sued his school because he has been forced to show his lesson plans and proposed handouts to the school principal. The teacher, Stephen Williams, is an orthodox Christian who decided to use primary materials to teach his fifth-grades the religious significance that the United States was founded on. After distributing rather blatantly religious documents and assigning his students almost proseltyzing assignments, Mr. Williams got in trouble with the school. The Easter proseltyzing assignment tells student to, among other things, analyze several of Jesus's speech and apply them to modern situations.

My responses:
1) As to learn ethics from Biblical situations. That is the nature of religious teaching. Yes, there are ethical lessons to be learned in the Bible, but in the context of what this teacher has done, this is not an ethics lesson but a Bible lesson.
2) I think teachers should be given great deference to teach whatever they want provided they are:
1) True
2) Balanced
3) Appropriate to the students' ages.

Mr. Williams' lesson were not true. Many of the documents that he has distributed have not be substantiated or confirmed as accurate. Additionally, some have been confirmed as forgeries. Some documents do lend insight into what the Founders believed to be the appropriate separation between church and state. As such, they may be presented to students.

These documents, if Mr. Williams would like to teach them, must be taught in a neutral manner balanced by a fair picture. James Madison may have been on the committee that hired the first Congressional chaplain, but disagreed with that committee's findings. George Washington proclaimed "National Prayer Day" but in the Treaty with Tripoli announced that America "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

The chief concern is what are 5th graders going to do with this knowledge. They do not have the critical learning skills to objectively analyze what their teacher tells them. They cannot balance ideas like a high schooler or college student. To present them with this evidence and then say you decide leaves them with little. Mr. Williams' words, as coming from the authority figure, are going take as literal truth. Mr. Williams defense is not valid where student cannot discern the truth besides what is fed to them by the teacher. This is not teaching, but proseltyzing.

If Mr. Williams wants to continue teaching in this manner, he should go to a religious school. If parents want their fifth graders being fed this truth, they should send their kids to religious schools. That's why we have them.

Boycotting Heathen Stores

2004-12-15T03:29:00.000-05:00

From the "Committee to Save Merry Christmas":

The Committee is "directing every person, family and organization offended by Federated Department Stores practices to boycott their stores. Refrain from shopping in their stores during the Christmas shopping season. A year long boycott is optional. The Committee is asking every supporter to spread the boycott to anyone who is sympathetic and to visit our website often for instructions, updates and a more complete listing of all Federated Department Stores."

This was prompted by the fact that "the term “Merry Christmas” has been deliberately and intentionally excluded from major retailers like Federated Department Stores."

Additionally, a Raleigh, NC church has urged, in an advertisement in the Raleigh News and Observer, for his parishioners to boycott non-Merry X-Mas-wishing stores. (Good thing I don't have a store in NC)

I guess the CSMC has neglected that Macy's in NYC features one of the largest Christmas windows in the world as a celebration of, you guessed it, Christmas, not Hanukah.

The best argument, as best expressed by Rev. Jim Melnyk of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Raleigh, NC: "Why not simply require stores owned by Jews to put a gold star in their ads and on their storefronts?" His sentiments are right on. To boycott stores who fail to wish Merry Xmas is akin to forcing exlcusionary practices on storeowners.

I'll be honest. I don't like public displays of "Happy Holidays" or anything. I've come to accept it though as a reasonable compromise compared to the alternative of "Merry Christmas" hanging from city halls. But what's the problem with "Merry Christmas" or "Seasons Greetings"? The Christian Right cannot stand pluralism. Or they can, but only when it is Protestant (or pro-life Catholics calling voting for Kerry a mortal sin). Boycotting storeowners for being pluralistic is just narrowminded and a religious arrogance.

As a little sidenote. I was watching the 700 Club tonight and they ran a story about a Guide to Financial Freedom that they give away for free. I called up Pat Robertson's band of merry men and requested one. I'm also getting a full collection of their law-related brochures. As I got off the phone, I just had to say "Happy Holidays" to hear the operates reaction. Surpringly enough, she said "you too" back to me. I just wanted to egg her on, but it didn't work. Go Operator!!

My First Post

2004-12-15T03:03:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the first post on CepSpeak, my blog. We'll see how this puppy works out. My goal is to post my thoughts on life, now that I'm done with my finals for the semester.

This Blog, replete with Cepian typos, will probably focus on a lot of Religious Right-bashing. I'll also discuss why Pedro is not a good pickup for the Mets and why they should retain Mikey Piazza.

I'll always love to have your comments. And maybe I'll help this world. Just maybe.