Congressional Travel: Goodbye Ethics Truce (part II)

Here's a useful page for anyone who wants real, primary source information about Congressional travel: Political Money Line Tom DeLay ranks 119th on this list. The New York Times story made it seem as though DeLay was the only one with an ethical problem. A real investigation would probably find many more in line ahead of him.

House Bought

I previously reported that we finally sold our house. We are downscaling, using the proceeds from our house to pay for our sons' college and to finance a career change for me. This has not been without its challenges (see my previous entry, God's Presence Better than a Beautiful Home.) We've finally made it to the next step in our move. Last weekend, we spent one day house hunting and bought one. We move in June.

I am finishing up my first semester as a seminary student. Right now, it's just a grind. Hebrew is impossible! No one over the age of 40 has the capacity to learn this language! I do well enough on the quizzes, but only because I cram immediately before. I retain this stuff for less than 24 hours. One course is almost the equivalent of a full-time job.

The course in Hermeneutics has been good. The topic is inherently interesting; it is also relevant. I have amassed a substantial library on the topic, including E.D. Hirsch's books, Gadamer's Truth and Method, Fish's Is There a Text in This Class?, and many others. I would also put my leisure-time reading on Constitutional jurisprudence in this category.

The course on Philosophy has been a mixed bag. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy. I took many graduate-level courses, as well. Much of the course has been boring review. However, some of our reading has been very refreshing. I have never, for example, considered Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God to have much value, but we studied the version originally developed by Arabic scholars in the late middle ages, embraced by Saint Bonaventure, and updated by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Their arguments against actual infinities -- Aquinas's inifinite regress -- are very compelling.

This time next week I will have my first semester behind me.

Christian Morality and Public Law--Five Theses

Al Mohler's got a great series going on Christian Morality and Public Law. Today's essay, the third and last in the series, is especially good.

Mohler's first thesis:

First, a liberal democracy must allow all participants in the debate to speak and argue from whatever worldview or convictions they possess. A liberal democracy should say yes to the entry of all citizens into the public conversation. Those citizens will come from many different backgrounds, and they will represent many different worldviews, some more religious and some less, some more secular and some less, some more Christian and some less. But all should be allowed equal access to the conversation. This is a principle that lies at the very heart of a deliberative democracy. Each citizen must be allowed to speak from his deepest convictions, and to identify those convictions without fear of prejudice or of being eliminated from the public debate.

One of the abuses evident in Connecticut during these recent debates on gay marriage has been the disenfranchsement of religion: the de facto disqualification of religiously-informed opinion. Many Connecticut legislators heaped ridicule on the arguments made by religious people, not because of the content of their arguments, but because they were made by religious people.

As I've written before, the supreme irony was legislators' use of Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he interpreted the Federal Constitution to mean there is a "wall of separation between church and state."

The Connecticut state legislature had passed laws essentially establishing Congregationalism as the state church. Congregational churches were supported by a state tax. Citizens who wished to divert their contribution to other churches, as did the Danbury Baptists, had to file for exceptions. These were difficult to obtain in some communities.

The Baptists complained that the Connecticut legislature effectively treated religious freedom as a grant of the state. The free exercise of religion was simply a concession. They appealed to Jefferson to affirm religious freedom as an inalienable right, recognized, not bestowed, by the state and, therefore, inviolable. Jefferson's statement was meant to keep the state from curtailing religious freedom. The wall was meant to keep the state from trampling on the rights of Baptists. The wall protects Baptists from the state (not the other way around.)

The Baptists were free to practice their religion. There were no restrictions on attending their churches, no restrictions on their worship practices, no restrictions on their beliefs. Their grievance was about access to state resources (in this case, tax money), and the preferential treatment by the state of one religious body over another.

Connecticut's disregard for Baptists, and Catholics, and other conservative religious groups, has not changed, nor has the Connecticut legislature's view of the free exercise of religion as a mere "tolerant" concession of the state. When they repeated the Courant's propaganda differentiating civil rights and religion, "This is a civil rights issue not a religious issue," they basically asserted that homosexual sodomy is a right, religion is something else, outside the domain of rights entirely.

Perhaps those Connecticut legislators who spoke so disparagingly of religion and the value of religious opinion, and who asserted their right to impose an alternate, irreligious view of morality on Connecticut's citizens ought to take another look at history. They are on the wrong side, yet again.

End to Ethics Truce

The ethics truce is off! We are going to see much more of this sort of thing, Lobbyist Paid for Lawmakers Travel. When the Democrats tried to nail Delay for having his family on the payroll they had to back down because it turns out many of them did, too. Now it turns out that unlike Delay's stiuation where a couple of his aides travelled on Abramoff's nickle, a couple Democratic congressmen benefitted directly themselves. They are pleading ignorance, but that's Delay's claim as well.

It looks like we're reverting back to the days of continual charges, counter charges, and investigations.

Update:

Pelosi's ethics stance hypocritical: " In an ABC interview Sunday, Mrs. Pelosi dismissed questions about travel by Democrats, telling interviewer George Stephanopoulos: 'Do not fall into a Republican trap of equating technicalities on reporting, timing of reporting with not upholding an ethical standard of the House.'

Republicans see a double standard.

'What is a 'technicality' for her requires a full-scale investigation for others,' said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Carl Forti. "

5-year-old's Dad Winds Up in Jail over School's Indoctrination on Homosexuality

From the Boston Globe: Arrested father had point to make:

Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.

''I chose to stay, which I'm not sure was a wise move,' he said. ''But I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple.' Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner' in which his son learned about ''adult themes.'

''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society,' Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad.'

The email exchanges between the Parkers and school officials have been posted here. Most significant is the Principal's assertion that the school is free not to inform parents about the educational programs of the school re: families.

I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy.

Once again, who is imposing moral views on whom?

Dave attended the anti-bias meeting on 4/11/05. They informed Dave that books with homosexual issues/families will be placed in every classroom in our school.

These are 5- and 6-year olds!

John Owen Site

Here's a new site dedicated to one of my heroes: John Owen.

It's been more than 25 years since I worked my way through The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. In my view, only Jonathan Edwards's On Free Will is a more important read.

I have since read volumes 1-7 of his complete works and sampled portions of volumes 8, 9, 13 16, and his commentary on Hebrews. It can be tough going, but much easier if you read him aloud, and worth it. Volumes 3 and 4 are on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Volume 4, surprisingly to those who adhere to the stereotypes of Puritans, is an analysis of spiritual gifts.

Breaking News from ScrappleFace

Scrappleface has another good one:

Republicans Redefine 'Majority' to Fit Current Usage

"Republicans in the House and Senate today introduced bills which would redefine the word 'majority' to mean 'a group compelled to do the will of a smaller group.'

The change in definition is designed to bring the word back in line with current usage and practice, according to an unnamed Senate source.

Read the whole thing. And, check out the Day by Day cartoon while you're at it.

Editorial Fiction

The New York Times is actually getting worse. Today's editorial concludes with the following paragraph:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

Glenn Reynolds and commenters on his site did a pretty good job of debunking this myth a couple weeks ago on Instapundit.com.

I remember the 2003 State of the Union vividly:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

I'm constantly amazed by people who either deny that Bush said this, or claim that he didn't really mean it. His actions prove he meant it; the record proves he said it. The NYT is lying!

Baloney!

The New York Times continues its anti-Christian crusade with an editorial filled with half-truths and non-truths.

The Disappearing Wall

Love's Language Lost

The debates in Connecticut over same-sex civil unions were about language as much as anything. And, the proponents of this bill won by a preemptive appropriation of words and phrases; e.g., "civil rights" and "love." I have yet to count up the number of references there were to Websters Dictionary. It was many. Rep. Toni Walker appealed to the dictionary as her legislative authority. Sen. Finch referred to the dictionary yesterday in his silly, silly speech, distinguishing "r i t e s" from "r i g h t s."

The Claremont Institute has an interesting article on nominalist and realist philosophies of language, and their application in this issue.

The Claremont Institute: Love's Language Lost

Good Op-Ed from NYT's Brooks on Roe v. Wade

The New York Times: Roe's Birth, and Death:

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views.

Brooks argues against the "Constitutional option" on filibusters, but deals with the root cause of lack of comity in the senate.

Civil Unions Signed into Law

Hartford Courant: Civil Unions Approved

Gov. Jodi Rell signed the same-sex civil unions bill at close of business today.

Despite all the self-congratulation about this bill -- "the legislature acted without a threat from the courts" -- we will have to see what happens now to the seven cases pending in the court. The fact that there's been no imminent threat from the courts on this has been propagandist genius. The new law will alter the argument in these cases, adding force to the idea that civil unions, as opposed to marriage, are discriminatory.

The legislature should have addressed the issue of same-sex marriage directly. Better yet, there should have been a straight-forward non-binding citizens' referendum on marriage.

This is historic. As a resident of Connecticut I have seen the arguments from the inside, as it were. It will be interesting to see what happens now in other states.

Most of the arguments evangelical Christians used to persuade their legislators to oppose this bill were completely ineffective. More than that, they were theologicaly incorrect.

1)They denied the doctrine of original sin. We believe that we are all born sinners. Therefore, whether homosexuality is a choice or something we are born with is the wrong question. It owes more to Pelagianism than to biblical theology.

2)They denied the psychosomatic unity of human beings. The resurrection is crucial. It teaches us that we are not souls housed in bodies, not ghosts in machines. The dissolution of soul and body is temporary and unnatural. We therefore should not be surprised if there are biological markers for behavior.

3)They were unclear about the relationship between church and state, conceding too much ground irretrievably from the outset.

I am not saying Christians should have argued with legislators over the doctrine of original sin, etc. But their thinking should have been so shaped by these doctrines that they never would have offered such naive, and wrong, arguments to begin with.

The Spineless Sit Up (or, Biden Borks Bolton)

Have you ever wondered how it would be possible to sit up without a spine? If you watched the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting yesterday, you actually saw it happening. Several Republicans are able to do it.

What a mess! Sen. Joe Biden, who did a masterful job orchestrating the smear on Bork way back when, is doing it again. He has wrested control over this committee from its chairman.

Voinovich is uncomfortable voting. Why? Because he hasn't attended any of the meetings, says he, and isn't up to speed. I can't believe his fellow senators let him get away with this. Then, Chafee jumps on this as though Voinovich has presented some new insight into the process.

The result is that Biden, Boxer, et. al. have more time to cut propagandist tapes and find whiny State Department employees to complain that Bolton once raised his voice.

Addition:

National Review Online Editorial: "In the key allegation against Bolton, he is said to have intimidated a State Department intelligence analyst who objected to Bolton's supposedly too-dire assessment of Cuba's bioweapons program. But Bolton aide Fred Fleitz has testified that the analyst in question, Christian Westerman, wasn't straight with Bolton or his staff — giving Bolton plenty of reason to be upset. At issue was language in a speech Bolton was to deliver about Cuba. It was Westerman's responsibility to run the proposed language by the CIA, but when he did so he attached his own prejudicial language dissenting from Bolton's views. When Fleitz learned this, Westerman falsely denied having done it, leading to the infamous confrontation in Bolton's office. Two of Westerman's supervisors subsequently apologized for how he handled the matter. That Bolton is now the one being pilloried for this spat — Sen. Chris Dodd said his conduct should be 'indictable' — is absurd. In any case, as Lugar pointed out in a statement earlier this week, in an environment characterized by contentious policy disputes — as Bush's foreign policy team was in the first term — you can expect some personal contention."

Law Review Article

David L. Chambers, professor at University of Michigan Law School, in Hofstra University School of Law's Law Review:

During the hearings and debates that led to the Defense of Marriage Act, many members of Congress and many witnesses drew comparisons between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Most of the comparisons were shallow and sarcastic, but, taken as a group, they offer interesting insights into conceptions of marriage and family in this country.

...

In a society with as heterogeneous a population as ours, the wisest role for the state in its relationship to families is one of supportive tolerance: The state should identify the patterns of family arrangements that actually exist and that endure throughout time. It should then perform a facilitative role to help these families prosper, unless strong reasons exist for believing that the arrangements cause significant harms. Under this view, the state would regard its decision to permit a certain group to marry (or its decision to provide a benefit to some family configuration), not as an endorsement of the group's worthiness, but as a simple recognition of their ongoing, nondestructive presence in the community and as a recognition of the group's need for access to the benefits and responsibilities that attach to various legal constructs, including marriage.

Thus, if there were a move to legalize plural marriages, I would encourage the state to permit them unless they genuinely posed significant harms.

Hofstra University School of Law Law Review - David L. Chambers

This is precisely the logic employed by many in Connecticut -- without his conclusion on plural marriages. The civil unions' bill was carefully crafted to avoid the stigma attached to Chambers' conclusion, but that's just an expedient to make civil unions parallel existing marriage laws. There's no good reason to start where he does and not end up in the same place.

Much of the rhetoric in the debate was "an endorsement of the group's worthiness." There's no other way to interpret such statements as Sen. McDonald's repeated assertion that same-sex relationships "Deserve! Deserve! Deserve!" the respect and honor of the citizens of this state. This is a claim of merit.

But the legislative middle ground in this debate adopted Chambers' lowest-common-denominator approach to the state's interest in marriage: it is a recognition of relationships as they exist in fact; as long as no one is hurt why not recognize them.

But how does this LCD approach work in combination with the assertion of "basic human rights"? Does every relationship that exists carry an entitlement, a right, to official, supportive recognition by the state and access to benefits, as long as it's already present and is nondestructive?

Chambers' article is very interesting and eye-opening.

Another Contrarian Book Coming from Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell has another new book coming, sure to be dismissed quickly because of its politically incorrect views, Black Rednecks And White Liberals: And Other Cultural And Ethnic Issues

I once sent him an email and received a timely, personal, and gracious reply. I'm a big fan!

He was on CSPAN last night. To the question, "What's the difference between a white redneck and a black redneck?" his quick answer, "Color!" Without embarrassment the interviewer followed up within a couple minutes, "What's the difference between a black liberal and a white liberal?" Again, "Color!"

Not too many are so willing to state the obvious; intellectuals generally shun it. But that is the main thesis in many of his books. He is determined to present facts, and asserts that is one of the major challenges of the day. Unfriendly facts are too readily beaten down.

The Irony of Quoting Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

During the debate on same-sex civil unions some of the state legislators alluded with pride to Thomas Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but in this letter. The state's legislators obviously felt their actions would yet again confirm Connecticut's preeminence in dealing with such issues and that they were somehow acting in continuity with the citizens of Danbury, CT, in 1802.

What irony! The arguments offered in the debate were much closer to what this letter opposed than to what it established. The Connecticut state legislature is on the wrong side of this today, as it was back then.

Jefferson's letter was a response to a petition by the Baptist citizens of Danbury, CT, protesting the de facto establishment of Congregationalism as the state-endorsed religion.

The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, they argued, "...what religious privileges we [Baptists] enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen."

The "degrading acknowledgements" referenced here refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist church. According to church/state scholar Derek Davis, Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout (sic) their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption certificate, and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain the certificates, or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted (see, "What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," Liberty, Jan/Feb, 1997, p. 13). Beyond this, the Baptists found the law unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations.

from: Separation of Church and State web site

The final version of Jefferson's reply is very short,

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Where's the irony?

1) The supreme irony, of course, is that this debate featured alot of religious argument, and the denomination whose arguments were endorsed by the proponents of this legislation is the historic descendant of the Congregationalism the Danbury Baptists complained about.

In spite of their assertion that "this is not a religious issue," one of the most common themes in the legislators' speeches was disparagement of religion; that is, certain forms of religion. A complete catalogue of arguments used by proponents of this legislation would have to include the bitter-former-practicing-Catholic argument and the my-small-minded-religious-relative story. The debate was very long on personal anecdote. The anti-unenlightened-religion anecdote was much more common than the emotionally cloying stigma-of-homsexuality story, though the latter was used to open the debate in both the state Senate and House. It seems that those who spoke most about separation of church and state also spoke the most about religion.

The only religious denomination that was cited favorably was the United Church of Christ, which joined with Love Makes a Family and the ACLU in lobbying for same-sex marriage. The fact that the UCC endorses same-sex marriage was used to argue that there is no consensus among people of faith on this issue, and, therefore, the religiously-informed opinion of Connecticut's citizens, unless they hold to the views of the UCC, are automatically disqualified.

Once again, the Congregationalists are endorsed by the state of Connecticut, and the rest of us are disparaged. (By Congregationalist, of course, I'm talking about those churches that remain in the UCC. Those Congregationalist churches that have left the UCC over this issue get the same treatment as the rest of us unenlightened types.)

2) It is ironic that the petition of the Danbury Baptists involved the unfairness of requiring an exemption for the free practice of religion, while the current state legislature denied an exemption for those religious organizations for whom recognizing same-sex marriages is "contrary to the bona fide religious tenets" of the organization. Once again, Lawlor, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

3) It is ironic that the main intent of Jefferson's response was to assert that religion is an inalienable right, a "natural right," not a mere concession of the Connecticut state legislature. Jefferson asserted the rights of conscience of religious people, "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights ..."

Yet the Connecticut state legislature, in voting against an exemption for religious organizations, trampled all over the rights of religious conscience, which though actually enumerated in the Constitution is apparently expendable while the right to sodomy is not. Their arguments disenfranchised religion, especially when they claimed that "civil rights" and "religion" are mutually exclusive, forgetting that religious expression and freedom of conscience are a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

4) It is ironic that Jefferson said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions." But the purpose of Connecticut's recent legislation is precisely to regulate opinion.

The goal of this legislation is to confer social acceptance on homosexual relationships. Rep. Michael Lawlor, "This was a discussion about ... private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature." This legislation is mere symbol, what it's really all about is private attitude and social opinion.

5) Finally, it is ironic that Jefferson signed his letter, "I ... tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

The legislators' accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, extremism, propensity toward violence, and so on, was offensive and insulting, very different from the high respect and esteem Jefferson affirmed, and much more blatantly "degrading acknowledgments" than the Danbury Baptists complained about.

Loss of Freedom of Religious Conscience in Connecticut

Here is the proposed ammendment that was resoundingly defeated by the House.

"No religious employer or business will be required to recognize a civil union if it is contrary to the bona fide religious tenets of such religious employer or business. As used in this section, "religious employer or business" means an employer or business that is a qualified church-controlled organization, as defined in 26 USC 3121, or a church affiliated organization. "

Lawlor said, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

So, religious people are losing their freedom of conscience in Connecticut.

Connecticut House Debates Same-Sex Civil Unions

The Connecticut State House of Representatives is debating the same-sex civil unions bill right now. Estimates are that the debate will continue till about 7:00pm.

They are currently debating a proposed ammendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Connecticut's current statues, I believe, are deliberately ambiguous on this issue. Proponents of the bill claim that this ammendment is completely unnecessary, "gratuitous" according to Lawlor, because that is already the law in Connecticut.

But their vociferousness in opposing a reiteration of what they claim is clear is enough to cast suspicion on their arguments. Lawlor does not want current ambiguity cleared up.

Addition:

Here is a copy of the current statute in Connecticut defining marriage:

Sec.45a-727a. State policy re best interests of child; public policy re marriage. The General Assembly finds that:

(4) It is further found that the current public policy of the state of Connecticut is now limited to a marriage between a man and a woman.

This is clearly time-bound. The current policy as of 5 years ago. Now as of 5 years ago. It's very reasonable for representatives to suspect that the current civil-unions bill will make this statement even more ambiguous than it already is, especially since it says that "wherever in the general statutes ... the term 'marriage' is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition."

For Lawlor to make his "just trust me" argument is completely disingenuous.

Opponents of the ammendment have labeled it "offensive" and "insulting", and proponents "extremist." Kind of puts the lie to their claim that it's not needed because it just restates existing state law. Do they regard existing law as extremist?

5:35 pm The ammendment passed 80-67. May make passage of the underlying bill more likely. Some who spoke in favor of it thought it made the bill more palatable.

5:40 pm Current speaker is saying that this is a debate between science and religion. A vote for same-sex civil unions is a vote for science. Perhaps asexual reproduction among hydras and yeast is the new paradigm for marriage. Because an amoeba splits we need civil unions. What conclusion do we draw from reptilian cannibalism? (Sorry, it's hard not to get at least a little sarcastic.) In general, I've been impressed with the debate in the House.

6:25 pm Rep. Klarides. Relative who married outside the Greek Orthodox faith rejected by family. Apparently, the view that marriage is just between a man and a woman is equivalent.

6:41 pm Starting to see celebration among proponents of the bill. They obviously think that all obstacles to this bill have been eliminated as a result of passing the DOMA-lite ammendment.

6:47 Current speaker is asking questions about custody and support implications of bill. He is also arguing that state employees who enter into civil unions will get greater benefits than those who are married. He has raised a series of unintended consequences of the bill.

Finally, someone who asserts that this is sneaky. Ought to address the issue of same-sex marriage, not civil unions. ... Also takes offense at the stories of violent, physical gay bashing, as though everyone who opposes same-sex civil unions is liable to physically assault gays and as though passing this bill will stop all gay bashing.

7:05 pm Can inmates in a prison enter into a civil union with each other?

If churches rent out their facilities for public use, they will be compelled to permit performance of same-sex civil unions in their facilities. Ammendment to protect religious organizations being offered. Lawlor is opposed! Remember this is the man who wants to legislate private attitudes about homosexuality. Says religious organizations shouldn't be exempt from honoring and respecting same-sex civil unions.

The ammendment was overwhelmingly rejected. Religious organizations are compelled recognize, honor, and respect same-sex civil unions!

7:30 Lesbian representative announces that she will vote against the bill because of addition of DOMA-lite ammendment.

8:02 One of the repeated arguments for the bill is that it is necessary to bring order into an area that requires it. The status of adopted children of same-sex couples is often not clear, for example, in those cases where same-sex couples split up. At the same time, those who make this argument characterize their previous votes as progressive.

So, the logic is this: "We've created chaos with all our previous votes on this issue. Now we need to clean up the mess we made." Real compelling argument.

8:11 Brendan Sharkey basically on an anti-Catholic rant. Opposition to the bill all based on fear and ignorance. Claims that "many" Christian denominations are favoring the bill. I doubt it. The UCC only had 4 people show up at their press conference.

8:31 The bill passed 85 to 63.

Outrageous Statements in the Hartford Courant

GOP Plots Values War: "As Republicans fight for relevance in the General Assembly, where they hold barely one-third of the seats, they see a potential ally in serial killer Michael Ross."

This is a new low, even for the Hartford Courant!

Basketball Movie

B-ball Cool!

More on Sex Differences

More on sex differences, thanks to Chuberto.

Edge: THE ASSORTATIVE MATING THEORY: A Talk with Simon Baron-Cohen

State Senate Votes

The state Senate just completed its vote. The bill recognizing same-sex civil unions passed 27-9, no abstentions.

I will try to transcribe portions of the video.

As is typical with this body, they congratulated themselves on their high level of debate and civility. I guess what they mean by that is that no one was shouting. There were plenty of accusations of bigotry and hatred.

The low point came when Sen. John Fonfara told about rereading Arthur Miller's The Crucible. The hanging of the Proctors reminded him that there is no essential difference between those who oppose same-sex civil unions and those who killed the Proctors. His religiously motivated constituents are just like the witch-hunting reverend John Hale.

Sen. Bill Finch stated "we are not to be deluded by religious argument" contrasting all religious faith and reason. He also congratulated the Senate on "expanding democracy" in the direction of "natural rights" consistent with both the state's and country's constitutions.

Again, how is this an expansion of democracy? Are we giving people a right to vote they did not have before? If his interest is in the expansion of democracy why is he so reluctant to submit this to a vote by the state's citizens?

Why Post on Civil Unions?

The accusation that opponents of same-sex civil unions want to impose their morality on the citizens of Connecticut while its advocates do not is sheer hypocrisy. Every earnest, heart-felt exhortation to right the wrong of denying recognition to these same-sex couples is an appeal to moral obligation. Every appeal to “civil rights,” especially a right that has never been previously recognized, is an appeal to morality. When McDonald and others say it is “wrong” to require same-sex couples to “justify to the outside world the love they have in their hearts” they are making a moral argument.

If this isn’t a moral appeal what is it? They certainly aren’t appealing to legal obligation. If a legal obligation already existed there would be no reason for a bill. No, advocates are looking to create a new law based on an alternate morality. To pretend anything else is the propagandist’s big lie.

At least Lawlor is more honest, “This was a discussion about public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature.” Lawlor is seeking to regulate private attitudes toward homosexuality. He is imposing his views on the morality of homosexuality without apology.

Now, I want to be clear on my position. I am not complaining about the effort to legislate morality, though legislating private attitudes is out of bounds. Morality-free legislation is a myth. It is the hypocritical accusation that one side is imposing morality while the other is not that angers me. The “imposing morality” shibboleth is really about alternate moralities: invalidating a religiously-informed, natural-law-based, or objective morality in favor of an evolving, sentimental, culture-response morality. The latter is no less imposed than the former, in this case its enactment is the culmination of a long, politically sneaky manipulation.

Let’s be very clear what happened here in Connecticut. An openly gay chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, with his allies, forced this issue on the state, congratulating himself that “the people” were acting while at the same time ensuring that the people have no opportunity to express their opinion in a non-binding citizens’ referendum.

The citizens of Connecticut have not been clamoring for a civil unions bill. In fact, the best analysis of previous polls is that most have responded to this issue with a big yawn. We have been apathetic, never believing that it would become a priority for the state. Yet, McDonald and other lobbying groups have made it so. And, today the state Senate is voting on McDonald’s bill.

Democrats accused President Bush of using a marriage and family ammendment as a wedge issue to divide Americans and to energize his base. It ought to be blatantly clear to everyone that the wedge is in the hands of McDonald and his allies.

He has made me respond. Me and many others who have been stirred to flood the legislature with phone calls, emails, and letters.

Drawing The Line At Gay Marriage

The Hartford Courant has finally run an article acknowledging that the majority of this state's citizens are opposed to same-sex marriage. But they continue to try to claim that most of the state's citizens are open to civil unions -- as though there's a difference.

Some Republicans, such as Governor Jodi Rell, are still trying to have it both ways. ctnow.com: Drawing The Line At Gay Marriage:

William A. Hamzy, chairman of the state Republican Party, touched off a dispute within the ranks of the GOP recently when he dismissed those who support civil unions but oppose gay marriage as 'parsing words.'

The problem was that Hamzy's declaration ran directly counter to the position adopted by two of the state's top Republicans: Gov. M. Jodi Rell and House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford.

Rell and Ward, like many people, are far more willing to extend rights in the form of civil unions than they are to accept a new definition of marriage.

Hamzy, of course, is right. No one could watch any of the legislative hearings on this bill and be fooled. Proponents of the bill invariably argued for conferring "marriage rights and benefits" on same-sex couples. And, state senator McDonald is very clear that the intent of the bill is to confer the state's recognition and respect on same-sex couples equivalent to the state's interest in encouraging marriage.

The state senate votes today on the same-sex civil unions bill. It is expected to pass. But the latest betting is that it will fail in the house.

David Brooks on The Strength of Conservatives

David Brooks's column in the New York times is always interesting. Today he argues that conservatives have become so strong because they're so divided. Very much a contrarian view.

A House Divided, and Strong: "Nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement's views about human nature and society are true."

Intelligent Design Blog

As part of my seminary studies I am beginning to look into issues with regard to faith and science. One of Phil Johnson's books is assigned reading. I've never really spent much time on this before, and still don't have formulated opinions on many issues. However, today I discovered a new cooperative blog maintained by key thinkers in Intelligent Design.

Here's the link: Intelligent Design the Future

Hopeful Signs

We are beginning to see signs that same-sex civil unions may not prevail in Connecticut after all. It certainly won't pass overwhelmingly without opposition as its self-congratulating advocates were predicting just a month ago.

Governor Rell now says she wants an ammendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. She will sign the civil unions bill but only if the one-man/one-woman uniqueness of marriage is upheld, too. This is a cowardly compromise, preserving only a label. The civil unions bill is a "marriage equality" bill conferring on same-sex couples all the recognition and benefits a state can confer. But, at least she's finally acknowledging the concerns of the majority of this state's citizens.

And, the Family Institute of Connecticut is reporting that the Speaker of Connecticut's House of Representatives, Rep. Jim Amann, predicts the bill will fail in the House. I don't know if that's true, but no one was even suggesting this as a possibility before.

New Age Theocracy

Perhaps those who worry about the encroachment of theocracy in the Terri Schiavo case ought to take a good look at the philosophy driving George Felos, Michael Schiavo's right-to-die lawyer. The following are excerpts from his book, Litigation as Spiritual Practice.

I experienced with gratitude and unsurpassed joy what the scriptures [his lower case “s”] describe as birthless, eternal, perpetual, primeval—that which weapons do not pierce, fire does not burn, water does not wet nor the wind cause to wither. In this reality, so grounded in the truth that your essence is the eternal unchangeable God, you become the sky. You become the stage upon which the play and dance of creation unfolds, without identifying with the manifestations of creation. In this state I experience a different relationship with my mind. … Grace feels like your ‘higher self’ stepping on the clutch—the gear of the mind lifts and disengages, and it loses all authority over you. (pp. 30-31)

This autonomy from mental control is characteristic of how events and emotions are encountered during Grace. … Nothing holds permanent and immutable except the ocean of God’s consciousness from which and upon which the forms of Divine consciousness play. Life in Grace is a succession of these unfolding moments. Whether the next moment brings death or a fortune is irrelevant because nothing that can happen can ever harm or hurt you, or improve or make you better. In reality you have never been born and never can die. You are the expression of the Divine. (pp. 31-32)

Many sites are carrying excerpts from his book. Just google the title. The most extensive collection I've found comes from the Florida Baptist Witness, the source for these quotes.

House Sold

We sold our house this past Friday. Our closing is late in June, which is the ideal time for us. The only contingency on the contract is that the house must appraise for the sale price. So, we are a step closer to my career change.

The appraiser was here for a full three hours today. Like many of the people I encounter these days, he was very curious about why we're doing what we're doing. I guess it's not every day that a 50+ year-old senior executive at a Fortune 100 company leaves his career to study for the ministry. I can understand the curiosity.

Many of our local town folk -- our dentist, optometrist, postal carrier, Starbucks "barista," real estate agent, video store clerk, and so on -- are excited, moved, and very supportive, but I'm afraid they often draw the wrong conclusion: a conclusion about us. The only valid conclusion is about Christ. He's worth it!

See my previous post from last September, "The Presence of God Better than a Beautiful House."

Update:


Here's the front of our house

Polyamory

An article from August, 2003, the Weekly Standard, especially relevant for residents of Connecticut

Beyond Gay Marriage

How to Mix Religion and Politics

Very interesting article over at TechCentralStation on politics and religion.

How to Mix Religion and Politics

See my own previous post, Civil Rights without Religion, written in response to the move here in Connecticut toward same-sex civil unions. As I said then, one of the most disturbing aspects of this debate is the disenfranchisement of people of faith. "This is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue" has become the slogan of the advocates for same-sex marriage. It is intended to silence anyone who has convictions about this topic based on religious commitment by automatically disqualifying them from participation in the debate. It's no coincidence that these advocates are so strongly opposed to a non-binding citizens' referendum. They don't want religious people, especially the 40% of the population that's Catholic, voting on this issue.

After the November elections Garrison Keillor joked bitterly that Christians shouldn't be allowed to vote; they're citizens of another kingdom anyway. Keillor was joking, mostly. But, the Connecticut slogan has that effect.

I find this slogan deeply offensive on many levels. To bracket off religion from rights as though these are separate, non-intersecting domains is absurd and dangerous:

1. The free exercise of religion, even in the public square, is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

2. The concept of minority human rights in the U.S. is founded on a commitment to the worth of the individual grounded in a religious view of humanity, bearers of the image of God. What happens if this religiously-informed view is disqualified, too? What alternative has been offered? In Connecticut, we've only seen an appeal to the DSM IV and to the empathetic feelings of the legislators. I doubt that these are durable guarantors of freedom.

3. This is an intolerable double standard. It's the source of the ideas and propositions of the religious that disqualifies them; but who scrutinizes the source of the ideas of their opponents? When have we heard any one of these legislators articulate their philosophy or document the grounds for it. How do we know that they didn't get their ideas from extremely offensive sources?

4. Many of the great civil rights workers were very religious people and used religious language to inspire others. William Wilberforce, for example, labored for 50 years in British parliament to get the slave trade outlawed. It was his evangelical faith that drove him. As my previous post tried to illustrate, the end of Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech turns into a Howard Dean-like list of states if we take the religion out of it.

This disenfranchisement of religion is gaining ground. Take that death penalty case in Colorado that's so much in the news. The death sentence was thrown out because some jurors consulted a Bible during deliberation. Suppose that instead of reading from the Bible, one of the jurors had the relevant passages memorized and recited them in the midst of their discussion of the case (not too farfetched a supposition). How is this different?

Suppose instead a juror read, or recited, from Thus Spake Zarathustra. What do you suppose would happen? Nothing.

Civil Rights without Religion

I have reposted this previous entry. For some reason, it has dropped off blogger's index. It was originally posted on March 1st.

One of the most disturbing aspects of Connecticut's discussion on same-sex civil unions is the disenfranchisement of religion. The Hartford Courant's editorial advocating for same-sex marriage-- they prefer marriage to civil unions -- rests on one main argument, "This is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue." Sen. Edward Meyer found this argument compelling enough to quote it in explaining his rationale for voting in favor of this bill; many of the other legislators echoed this thinking as well. (see my previous post where I link to video of the Judiciary Committee's proceedings.)

These legislators are eager to bracket off religious convictions from this discussion, positing civil rights and religious beliefs as so completely separate that any proposition that may ultimately be grounded in religious conviction is automatically disqualified from consideration. For example, Rep. Walker's one question to a witness at the Judiciary' Committee's public hearing was, "Where do you get your definition of marriage?" insinuating that any definition that is informed by religion is wrong. It is not the content of the opinion that disqualifies it, it is its source.

This view of the relationship between religion and civil rights is ignorant, naive, and dangerous. Expression of religiously informed opinions is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the first explicitly enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, not a newly invented right somehow impled by other rights themselves read by inference into Constitutional amendments.

More importantly civil rights ultimately are grounded on a religious view of human beings that assigns equal worth to minorities. The governing documents of the United States ultimately rest on a view of human beings as created in the image of God. The sheer novelty of Alan Dershowitz's book, "Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights" ought to be sufficient proof that bracketing off religious expression from civil rights is historically blind.

Let's imagine what the end of Martin Luther King Jr.'s great civil rights "I Have a Dream" speech would have been like without any religion:

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!" And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring

from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that.

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside,

let freedom ring! And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

I have a dream ... This is our hope ... Let freedom ring ...

That all that's left. Loses its force doesn't it?

What secular substitute does the Hartford Courant find to ground civil rights? They cannot appeal to nature; simple biology -- procreation and plumbing -- are against them on this issue. Do they appeal to some other science? Yes. They ground their view of civil rights on recent developments in psychology: the decision of the APA to drop homosexuality from the most recent editions of the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This strikes me as a very fragile basis for minority human rights, indeed!

I will stick with the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," the Creator who created all equal and who endowed them with inalienable rights. (See preamble to Declaration of Independence). And I trust the Creator to inform us about the bounds and limits of those rights and to define for us the happiness we ought to pursue.

Though our society has often failed to live up to the aspirations expressed in its religiously-informed view of humanity, these aspirations are grounded on that which is universal and enduring. It is far more likely to be self-correcting in the long-term than the currently fashionable thoughts of a small task force of psychiatrists.

(Or the editors of a dictionary. Rep. Walker's authority for her definition of marriage, by the way, is "Webster's Dictionary" a far superior authority than any the witness may have offered. Perhaps she would do well to read federal legislation on marriage or even Supreme Court opinions such as Murphy v. Ramsey, a polygamy case, just in case the editors of Webster didn't get it quite right.)

Baptist Zoos

I found an interesting review of Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, written by Alvin Plantinga

Darwin, Mind and Meaning

Dennett doesn't confine himself to matters just of theoretical interest. He sees serious religion as steadily dwindling with the progress of science, but suggests that we should keep a few Baptists and other fundamentalists around in something like cultural zoos (no doubt with sizable moats to protect the rest of us right-thinking nonfundamentalists). We should preserve a few Baptists for the sake of posterity--but not, he says, at just any cost. 'Save the Baptists', says he, 'but not by all means [Dennett's emphasis]. Not if it means tolerating the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world.' Save the Baptists, all right, but only if they promise not to misinform their children by teaching them 'that 'Man' is not a product of evolution by natural selection' and other blatantly objectionable views.

Plantinga is a brilliant philosopher. His reformulation of the ontological proof for the existence of God is especially challenging.

Another provocative essay is his Naturalism Defeated

Captain's Quarters

Captain Ed has an interesting response to Maureen Dowd's latest nonsense, about The Da Vinci Code. He also has a little explanation of Gnosticism.

Captain's Quarters

Very Short Introductions

I recently discovered the Very Short Introductions series published by Oxford University Press.

These are excellent little books, usually about 150 pages, written by well-recognized specialists on their topic. The book on Paul, for example, is by E.P. Sanders. Topics are really varied: Art Theory, the Bible, Capitalism, Intelligence, Cosmology, Kant, Hume, Socrates, Buddhism, Animal Rights, Archaeology, Drugs, the Tudors, the Russian Revolution, Social and Cultural Anthropology and many, many others. (Just search for "very short introductions" on Amazon.)

The one on Literary Theory is especially good. I also have the volumes on Nietzche and Linguistics but I haven't read them yet.

One very puzzling note: the volume on Shakespeare was written by Germaine Greer. I was not aware she was a Shakespearean scholar. (According the reviews she's not.)

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly : A Memoir of Life in Death

I loved this little book when I first read it a couple years ago. Its author, Jean-Dominique Bauby, dictated it letter-by-letter by blinking his left eye. He suffered from locked-in syndrome after a stroke affecting his brain stem, and the only movement he had remaining was his left eye. He died just two days after the book was published.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly : A Memoir of Life in Death

A woman, Kate Adamson, who's been testifying to the excruciating pain she suffered when her family permitted the removal of hydration and nutrition suffered a similar stroke to Bauby's. She, too, was a victim of lock-in though she eventually recovered. She is a strong activist for stroke victims and apparently an effective motivational speaker, but her testimony is irrelevant on the Terri Shiavo case except perhaps as an example of misdiagnosis. She and Bauby had a rich internal life without cognitive impairment. Their cerebral cortex was okay, it was the brain stem that was affected. Patients in the persistent vegetative state have fully functioning brain stems.

Now, the Terri Shiavo case has enough ambiguity of its own, appearance of conflict-of-interest and of possible bias in diagnoses, that there's no need to add confusion about lock-in and PVS.

Even Dr. Cranford sometimes lumps the two together. Notice the beginning of his Minneapolis Star Tribune OpEd referenced below:

Just a few decades ago cases of brain death, vegetative state, and locked-in syndrome were rare. These days, medicine's "therapeutic triumphs" have made these neurologic conditions rather frequent. For all its power to restore life and health, we now realize, modern medicine also has great potential for prolonging a dehumanizing existence for the patient.

Although, Cranford leaves lock-in behind in the remainder of his editorial, there's no question that he regards it as a dehumanizing existence, perhaps a candidate for withdrawal of nutrition and hydration as PVS and Alzheimers are for him. Kate Adamson's testimony is very relevant in response to him in that case.

The Belmont Club : An Original Copy

Very interesting post on Ward Churchill over at The Belmont Club today. I actually like his brief summary better that VDH's original article.

The Belmont Club : An Original Copy

Scooby Doo Glowing Bug Man

What could I possibly have purchased at Amazon that would warrant this recommendation?

Amazon.com: Software: Scooby Doo Glowing Bug Man (Jewel Case)

Usually their recommendations are pretty good: nonfiction books (philosophy, religion, hermeneutics, current events, Supreme Court, some history, and any sports book by John Feinstein), good fiction (anything John LeCarre-like), some CDs (pretty eclectic tastes, most recently the new CD by The Decembrists), the occasional DVD (based on my fascination with the old The Prisoner TV series, Yes! Prime Minister, Bertie Wooster, and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), and some software (the Adobe suite of products).

How does this lead to Scooby Doo? Jewel case, no less!

Alfred Kinsey

Very interesting article in The City Journal on Alfred Kinsey.

Alfred Kinsey: The American Lysenko by Edward Feser

New Blog

I've decided to add a new blog dedicated solely to meditations on the Bible since I've added so much commentary on current events and political issues of interest to this one.

The new blog, In the Cleft of the Rock, is at cleftrock.blogspot.com. Its title comes from Exodus 33:18-22, "Moses said, 'Please show me your glory.' And he said, 'I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD' ... Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock'

My theme is "watching God's glory."

Neurologist's Affadavit

HughHewitt.com has a copy of the affadavit filed by Dr. William Cheshire arguing that Terri Schiavo is more likely in a minimally conscious state than in a persistent vegetative state. Fox was wrong last night when it said that Dr. Cheshire had never personally seen Terri. His opinion is based at least partially on personal observation.

Update:

The New York Times has an article today seeking to discredit Dr. Cheshire because he is an evangelical. A Diagnosis with a Dose of Religion

William P. Cheshire Jr., the Florida doctor cited by Gov. Jeb Bush yesterday in his announcement that he would intervene again in the case of Terri Schiavo, is a neurologist and bioethicist whose life and work have been guided by his religious beliefs.

The center's Web site notes that he and his wife and four children are members of the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Jacksonville and that he has done medical missionary work in Honduras and Siberia.

It also quotes Dr. Ronald Cranford,

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic."

There's no question that Dr. Cheshire does not share Dr. Cranford's credentials on PVS; Dr. Cranford is the nation's foremost expert on PVS. However, if the New York Times is going to cast suspicion on Dr. Cheshire because of his religious affiliation, shouldn't they also divulge Dr. Cranford's affiliations?

According to WorldNetDaily, Cranford is a member of the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, which promotes doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and was a featured speaker at the 1992 national conference of the Hemlock Society.

Dr. Cranford is well-known for his pro-death views. At one time he wrote an OpEd for the Minneapolis Star Tribune advocating withholding nutrition and hydration from patients in advanced stages of Alzheimers.

It may be that Cranford is right and Cheshire is wrong about Terri's diagnosis, but if the New York Times is going to make the case that Dr. Cheshire's diagnosis is colored by his religious, pro-life views it ought to concede the Dr. Cranford's diagnosis may also be colored by his non-religious, physicalist, pro-death views.

There seems to be sufficient appearance of conflict-of-interest and bias in this case to have warranted erring on the side of too many, perhaps even unnecessary, tests.

Between Travesty and Tragedy

The Washington Post has a number of stories and editorials on Terri Shiavo today. Charles Krauthammer best articulates my own position though I have doubts about his concluding recommendation.

Between Travesty and Tragedy

There's also an interesting entry at The Evangelical Outpost on no-fault death.

Sex Differences

Press release from the Duke Institute for Genome Scienses and Policy. There's also an article in Nature magazine that suggests that the fact that women have two X chromosomes and men only one explains higher incidence of mental disability among men.

Larry Summers got himself into alot of trouble by hypothesizing that there may be differences in the variability of traits that may be correlated with interest or ability in math and physics, that is, that the standard deviation around the mean -- which is probably the same -- for this unnamed trait may differ between men and women.

It'll be interesting to watch the reaction to these studies.

Legal Issues Involving Healthcare Directives, Death, and Dying

FindLaw has set up special coverage on the Terri Shiavo case with the most recent documents accessible from a single page.

FindLaw Legal News: Special Coverage: Terri Schiavo Case: Legal Issues Involving Healthcare Directives, Death, and Dying

Update: I drafted a Living Will today with a section specifying instructions in the event of PVS. I want to avoid anything like this Terri Schiavo spectacle. I was very grateful that my Dad had had the foresight to have a Living Will. It relieves the family of an intolerable burden.

Scalia on God's Justice and Ours

According to my anonymous commenter, Scalia says the US government derives its mandate from God rather than from the consent of the governed. Here's a link to Scalia's address as published in First Things: God's Justice and Ours

Judge for yourself whether this is an accurate representation of Scalia's view. Scalia appeals to Romans 13:1-5 to illuminate the difference between public morality and private morality. St. Paul argued that governments have the authority to do things private individuals shouldn't. The argument is the same whether it refers to incarceration or the death penalty. No individual has the right to hold another prisoner in his home.

Scalia is expounding his own views as a sincere Catholic, but begins with this clear statement:

Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”—that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.

Lack of Moral Clarity (continued)

Looking for information about rulings on the Shiavo case I came across this interesting bit:

Some disturbing facts about the Schiavo case:

• After Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990, she became profoundly cognitively disabled.
• Michael filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit, during which he said he would care for her for the rest of her life, which, assuming proper care, would be a normal lifespan. He also presented at trial a medical-rehabilitation expert who had developed a plan to provide support for Terri to maximize her ability to respond to her environment.
• A jury awarded $1.3 million in the malpractice case, of which $750,000 was put in trust to pay for the kind of care that Michael promised to provide Terri.
• Michael never kept his promise.
• Within months of the money being deposited in the bank, Michael ordered a do-not-resuscitate order placed on Terri's chart. He has also repeatedly denied her other forms of medical care, such as treatment for infections.
• Once the money was in the bank, according to affidavits filed by nurses under penalty of perjury, Michael ordered that Terri be denied stimulation.
• In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, 'When is she going to die,' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch going to die?' (This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response.)
• Michael dated after the malpractice trial; he is now engaged to be married. He lives with his fiance, with whom he has one child and another on the way. He reportedly plans to marry his fiance as soon as his wife's death is induced.
• Money that was intended to pay for Terri's treatment and rehabilitation has instead gone to lawyers Michael retained to obtain a court order to bring about her death.
• If Terri dies, Michael will inherit what is left of the $750,000 (if any remains) and all other property they owned."

Lack of Moral Clarity

Sometimes I wonder at my lack of moral clarity on an issue that others seem so convinced about. I'm talking about Terri Shiavo. I feel an ambivalence about this issue I probably shouldn't.

1) I don't understand why the federal legislature is intervening in this case, especially since they are looking to pass legislation specific only to her. How is this not an encroachment on the judiciary, in violation of constitutional separation of powers? The precedent established by this act will probably have a long-term adverse affect we cannot see now.

2) The examples I've read of people recovering from a Persistent Vegetative State are all inaccurate. They confuse lock-in, where there is continuing cognitive function, with PVS, where there is none.

3) Withdrawing nourishment and hydration is not the same as unplugging a respirator. A baby can breathe on its own, but cannot feed itself. Not giving Terri water seems more morally repulsive than pulling the plug on a respirator would be.

4) I don't understand the husband's motives; they seem inherently suspect anyway. He has moved on and has a new family. But he has not yet remarried because Terri remains alive. Doesn't he have a disqualifying interest in her death? Has anyone else confirmed that this would be Terri's wish? Her family is on the other side on this.

5) If her family is willing to care for her at their expense, why shouldn't they? The husband believes she is unaware and will never recover. What harm is there, then, in continuing to sustain her?

Textualism

I started reading Scalia Dissents this morning. Scalia refers to himself as a "textualist." I like that. I'm going to start calling myself that.

Scalia is one of the great judicial writers, comparable, in my view, to Oliver Wendell Holmes, though less poetic.

I read Scalia because I am intensely interested in the topic, but he is also one of those writers I'd read just to enjoy the style. Others include: Loren Eiseley, H.L. Mencken, Bertrand Russell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Annie Dillard. Michael Nozick is an absolutely brilliant philosopher. I rarely agree with these writers, but I have to admire their style. Tom Wolfe, too, is always entertaining. His book, The Painted Word, is his most insightful.

Basketball Brackets

I was feeling pretty good after the first round. Best I've ever done. I even picked some of the great upsets. I had UW-Milw over Alabama, Vermont over Syracuse, UAB over LSU, Iowa State over Minnesota, among others. I missed Bucknell over Kansas. Did anyone in the country get that one? I also thought Creighton might upset West Virginia, so I missed that, too.

My second round is the worst I've ever done: Boston College out, Gonzaga out, Wake Forest out, Kansas out, Oklahoma out. Three of my picks for the Elite Eight are already gone, and one pick for the Final Four (Wake).

What destruction to my bracket will today bring? I've got the remaining ACC teams winning today, even NC State over UConn.

Iraqi Civilians Dead

Could this really be true? Could a medical journal really publish a study based on such a flawed methodology? And, how could the media repeat this "finding" without any qualification?

100,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead

95% confident that the actual number of Iraqi civilians dead is between 8,000 and 194,000. The constantly repeated the number, 98,000, is the midpoint between these two ends.

U.S. Constitution: Made in Jamaica?

Here's another article on the same topic, Supreme Court justices' use of international law to aid in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Townhall.com Editors: U.S. Constitution: Made in Jamaica?

Please note that I've reverted to my old template for this blog.

"We the People"?

Interesting article on Scalia's debate with Breyer on the use of international law in deciding Supreme Court cases. Scalia's sarcasm is entirely warranted. Kennedy and Breyer are very selective in their use of cases. Though they often refer to an international consensus they have never in fact cited Asian law. Given the sheer size of the Asian population it's hard to see how there can be an international consensus without them. Europe is not the world. And they obviously pay no attention to wide-spread international condemnation of abortion and homosexuality. Why is Muslim Sharia law excluded from consideration? Probably because they both find it repugnant. But then that just proves that they select international precedent which supports their already-held views.

The Claremont Institute: What Happened to "We the People"?

The ongoing debate about constitutional interpretation ought to be of keen interest to the Christian. No where else do we see with such clarity the effect of subjective morality and of postmodern hermeneutics on social policy. Unlike the cloistered theorizing of academics, Supreme Court decisions have real consequences on real people.

Judicial Confirmation Statistics

Very good table of stats on judicial confirmations. Fewer than 40% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed. Even Clinton got 61% of his nominees confirmed. I'm not sure if his midnight nominees count in the number returned.

Daly Thoughts

The decline in confirmations since Ford I think is largely due to the ascendancy of the view of the constitution as a "living document." Previously the primary qualification of a Supreme Court Justice was that he/she be a good lawyer especially skilled in reading and writing. If the meaning of the Constitution is fixed, the intent of its framers as understood by its ratifiers, then a good justice is one who is particularly skilled at applying fixed principles to new and unforeseen circumstances. Confirmation of a justice is simply affirmation of his/her competence.

The "living constitution," however, requires different skills: imagination, creativity, and policy-making ability. A judge creates new principles. He/she is a law-maker for life. The confirmation process is not an evaluation simply of technical skill, but an effort to discern the nominee's legislative agenda, whether the nominee's views are "moderate," representing the "will of the people."

Democratic senators unintentionally came clean on this yesterday at their MoveOn press conference. Barbara Boxer, arguing for a supermajority vote on judicial appointments in violation of the Constitution,

"There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

Boxer's statement makes sense only if a judge's role is basically the same as a legislator's. Yes, it is "scary." But you would think that this fear and anxiety would lead to some introspection, to asking some basic questions. Maybe this is not a flaw in the Constitution, but a mistaken judicial philosophy. Would the framers of the Constitution, very careful and nuanced thinkers, simply overlook a needed "check and balance" that's so blatantly obvious to a less-than-astute thinker such as Barbara Boxer?

Of course not. Judges needed no check on their legislative authority because they had none! Neither did they stand for election; they had no constituency to represent.

The answer is not to require a supermajority for confirmation but to repudiate the judicial philosophy that led to this absurd idea.

Update: Daly Thoughts has a number of updates to stats on Circuit Court nominations adjusting for the effect of renominations. The numbers change fairly dramatically but still support the charge of obstructionism.

Beirut - Lebanon freedom protests at Martyr's Square Beirut - QTVR photos from panoramas.dk

Really cool panoramic picture of demonstration in Beirut.

Beirut - Lebanon freedom protests at Martyr's Square Beirut - QTVR photos from panoramas.dk

ThreeBadFingers Constitutional Interpretation

A blogger had done us all a service by transcribing Justice Antonin Scalia's talk on constituional interpretation at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Video of the talk is available at c-span.org.

Constitutional Interpretation

The State's Interest in Marriage?

What is the Public Purpose of Marriage?:

"The debate over whether homosexual couples should be allowed to legally 'marry' is not about rights, equality, or discrimination, despite the often heated rhetoric to that effect. Still less is it about the allocation of an entitlement package of legal rights and financial benefits. Instead, this is a question of definition--how do we define the social institution we call marriage? To answer that we must ask, What is the public purpose of marriage?

Please note that I said the public purpose of marriage. The private purposes for which people enter into marriage may be as diverse as the people themselves. Homosexual activists sometimes argue that they want to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals do--out of a desire for love and companionship.

But I ask you--are interpersonal love and companionship really the business of government? Would we even tolerate the government issuing licenses and regulating entry and exit into relationships whose only or even principal purpose is emotional attachment? I submit to you that the answer is no."

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council

The Connecticut state Judiciary Committee has a very different view, as do many of our state senators. State Rep. Toni Walker's explanation of the state's interest in recognizing same-sex marriage, "I love my friends and I want my friends to love who they want to love." (Feb 23rd, Judiciary Committee deliberations) I guess representatives in Connecticut are not elected to represent the state's interest but their friends'.

State senator Thomas J. Herlihy answered our letter to him, "This is a matter of civil rights, and everyone should have the right to share their lives with the person they love whether that love is between two men or two women." This is equally silly. Civil union legislation is not about anti-sodomy laws nor about restrictions on cohabitation. It is about conferring the state of Connecticut's endorsement on this form of love. It is about conferring benefits, social protections and priviledged status on a relationship.

If it really is a matter of rights, anyone who loves has the right to have the state recognize that love, then what right does the state have to forbid incest or polygamy or place age restrictions on marriage? Or does the state then claim the ability to discern true love from deluded love? And, how does it do that? Does the state use the DSM IV as its guide? Does the DSM IV then become a legislative document?

Filibusters

The New York Times' view of filibusters when used by Republicans:

the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

when used by Democrats:

the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod

From the Weekly Standard, Air America, New York Times, and more.: "Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item"

Judiciary Math

Silliness in Connecticut's state Judiciary Committee continues. The committee voted to repeal the state's death penalty this week by an overwhelming majority. Video of the discussion is found at the CT-N web site.

Michael Lawlor, co-chair of the committee, has obviously learned his math from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who claimed that a minority of states constitutes a "national consensus" in the Roper case. One of the reasons Connecticut ought to repeal the death penalty, according to Lawlor, is that "only a few states, 38, allow the death penalty." So, according to his math 76% constitutes "a few," and, I guess, 24% is "a lot."

To be fair, Lawlor added that two states, New York and Kansas, "have the death penalty in abeyance, bringing the total down to 36, and New Hampshire doesn't have any inmates on death row." So, I guess he isn't completely hopeless. He does know how to subtract. He can take 3 away from 38 to get 35. It's just relative magnitude he has a problem with: big and small, bigger and smaller.

The death penalty deserves thorough discussion. Even strong supporters of the death penalty may have concerns about its implementation and may question whether there is equity in its enforcement. However, the quality of discussion in this Judiciary Committee is appalling. It has been shocking to see the absence of logic in much of their reasoning; now we have to question their knowledge of basic math, too.

This is a symptom of the new hermeneutic as applied to judicial reasoning, the meaning of a text is whatever I can get away with and still sound rational. Stubborn arithmetic used to be exempt from such radical subjectivism, but no longer.

The Phoniest Argument

Yesterday we received a letter from our state senator, Thomas Herlihy (R CT 8th District), saying that he will be voting for the same-sex civil unions bill when it comes to the senate. He has only one reason for supporting the bill, "I personally believe that this is a matter of civil rights, and everyone should have the right to share their lives with the person they love whether that love be between two men or two women."

This is clearly absurd -- the bill is not about who loves whom -- yet the appeal to "civil rights" trumps all rational argument. Thomas Sowell had an interesting, if sometimes brutal, commentary on the issue on his blog last December, Thomas Sowell: Gay marriage 'rights'

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

In the Womb

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/preview.html

Looks like amazing video!

Voting for Worldviews

John Piper has a great sermon on same-sex marriage at the Desiring God web site: Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage

Here's an especially relevant excerpt:

Thus we should pray and work that marriage would be understood and treated in our land and by our government as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.

If someone asks, Why do you impose your religious conviction on the whole culture, we answer: all laws impose convictions on a culture. And all convictions come from worldviews. They don’t come out of nowhere. People argue for laws on the basis of a certain view of the world. What needs to be kept clear is that voting for a law (a prescribed or proscribed behavior) does not mean voting for the worldview behind it.

A person with an atheistic worldview may argue that, since there is no God, human life is the most sacred thing there is and therefore it is appalling to kill little humans in the womb. Or a Christian may argue that, since there is a God, humans created in his image ought not to be killed in the womb. Therefore a pro-life vote may not be a vote for either worldview. The same thing is true for the meaning of marriage. The way laws (and amendments) come into being in a pluralistic democracy like ours is the convergence of enough different worldviews on the same prescription for behavior—when enough people with different worldviews have the same idea of how we ought to behave.

Being an indigenous Christian in that setting means working to shape the culture into behaviors that reflect the revealed will of God, even if only externally, and dimly, and embraced by mercy for very different reasons than our own.

John's distinctions are very helpful but Connecticut's lawmakers don't even pretend to be concerned only with regulating external behavior.

Rep. Michael Lawlor is transparent about his desire to legislate private attitudes. He is not prescribing behavior, he is imposing a worldview, "public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this ... That's what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgment that homosexuality simply apprears to be a normally occurring phenomenon in nature." Lawlor offers no rationale for proposing same-sex marriage legislation, he identifies no interest of the state in this, except as a symbol that homosexuality is normal and natural.

Sen. Andrew McDonald's rationale is that same-sex couples are required "to justify to the outside world the love that you have in your heart and that is wrong. That is wrong and unacceptable." Again, though he claims he doesn't want to undermine anyone's religious faith, he, nevertheless, asserts that "the people" of Connecticut have decided to confer respect and moral approval on same-sex couples.

Against what John Piper describes as the norm, laws regulating external behavior merely, the co-chairmen of our Judiciary Committee led our legislators to endorse a worldview; behavior is just symbolic.

Who is imposing beliefs in Connecticut, now?

Governor Rell Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

According to the Hartford Courant, Governor Jodi Rell has joined the ranks of those Republicans seeking political cover by endorsing a same-sex civil unions bill while at the same time proclaiming opposition to same-sex marriage.

Rell has said repeatedly that she is opposed to same-sex marriage, but until Tuesday she had given mixed signals on civil unions that would convey to same-sex couples nearly all the rights of marriage.

The Hartford Courant, of course, is less than honest when they claim the bill conveys "nearly all" the rights of marriage. The bill conveys all the rights of marriage a state can convey. The only rights not conveyed are federal benefits outside the jurisdiction of the state, such as federal Social Security benefits.

I find this attempt to fool the citizens of the state of Connecticut insulting and offensive. The gay and lesbian lobby represented by Love Makes a Family is equally offended.

I have just sent the following letter to Governor Rell.

Office of the Governor
State Capitol
210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106


Governor Rell:

Announcing that you are opposed to same-sex marriage but in favor of same-sex civil unions is not believable.

1) If someone enters into a marriage and also into a civil union he or she commits bigamy. So, if by entering into a civil union one can violate a marriage law then a civil union is marriage.

2) The same-sex civil unions bill confers all of the same rights, without exception, as a same-sex marriage bill would. Sen. Andrew McDonald tried to sidestep this during the Judiciary Committee hearing on February 23rd by claiming that civil unions do not confer federal benefits such as Social Security benefits or immigration protection. However, this was transparently disingenuous. No state law, whether on marriage or civil unions, can confer federal benefits.

3) During the Judiciary Committee meetings and public hearings members of the committee use these terms interchangeably.

Nobody is fooled by this. If you are in favor of same-sex civil unions you are also in favor of same-sex marriage.

The citizens of this state ought to be given the chance to vote on a referendum regarding same-sex marriage. Anything short of this is dishonest and manipulative.

The legislature of the state of Connecticut is very busy congratulating itself for taking this issue on without the threat of a court order. However, this process is no less sneaky. And, these legislators have somehow overlooked the pending cases of same-sex couples suing for the right to marry, maybe because they're so busy patting themselves on the back they can't see what's right in front of them.

A state-wide referendum on same-sex marriage would be much more honest. Let's call it what it is, and let's vote on it.