Tortured Logic, Indeed

Best of the Web yesterday had a bit on Michael Newdow's attempt to restart his case against having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I find Newdow's case stupid and worthless and needing to be refused by the courts a priori. I'm also annoyed by James Taranto, though. Here's the excerpt:

California crackpot Michael Newdow, who failed in his effort to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because he didn't have custody of his biological daughter, "relaunched his constitutional case Tuesday" and is now using other people's children to make the case:

This time around, Newdow is joined by eight co-plaintiffs--all custodial parents of children who are students in Northern California public school districts or the children themselves. . . .

In an interview Tuesday, a parent of one of the child plaintiffs said the third-grader has been aware of the pledge issue since Newdow's last case was in the news. The child remarked at the time, "That's not right," and became "quite activist about it," the parent said. The complaint identifies the child as a pantheist who doesn't believe in a personal God.

Yes, that's right--the kid is in third grade and he's a "pantheist."

I wonder if Taranto would say, "Yes, that's right--the kid is in third grade and he's a 'Christian'"? My third-grade aged child, Connor, is certainly capable of having his own religious opinions. For a long time, we thought he was an atheist, since he rejects the very idea of a god(dess). But after a little discussion one day, I discovered that he's actually an animist, though he didn't know the term. That is, he believes that all living things are animated by spirits, but that they are not divine. And while animism is a part of my and my wife's pagan beliefs, there is a definite Divine as well.

In other words, yes, a child of 8 can indeed have religious opinions that differ from his parents', and can also presumably have religious opinions that mirror his parents' but that were not simply indoctrinated into him. It's quite possible that such a child could be a pantheist, but he probably wouldn't know the name for it unless his parents had discussed it with him.

UPDATE: Apparently I was not the only critic. Taranto further explains his position (no permalink yet):

Well, that was precisely our point. If a third-grader is a "pantheist," that just means his parents are extremely weird.

You know, Newdow is deeply misguided and is abusing the rights of his fellow citizens. I detest that, and hope Newdow loses. On the other hand, Taranto is acting like a jerk, by dismissing people in broad categories. There are a lot of pantheists and polytheists who are conservative and/or libertarian, and it's kind of annoying, as one of them, to be dismissed so casually as "extremely weird".

(Given that I generally agree with at least his general approach to political matters, if not always his conclusions, it's not like I'm coming at him from the other side. I fail to see how using ad hominem arguments boost the case against Newdow's abusiveness.)

Take a Hefty Dose of Perspective

This just infuriates me. Now some Wiccans are going the way of some Christians, and decrying Halloween celebrations and decorations because of their religion. Fantastic! Great! Lovely!

Look, I can understand: if you don't have a healthy and balanced view of yourself or your religion, any kind of stereotypical depiction is going to drive you nuts. But the answer to that is to develop a healthy and balanced view of yourself and your religion, not to get up in arms over someone else's celebration.

People are not going to suddenly start having huge bonfires, roasting pigs, and dancing to the glory of the Old Ones just because some school - or even all schools - stops putting up plastic hook-nosed hags. This isn't the Burning Times, and we need to not act as if it is. If we do, what will we say to anyone when the real Witch burners - and yes, there still are some who would happily burn Witches - come for us?

WTF?

I just cannot wrap my head around the phrase "worship the Goddess and the terrorists have won" (paraphrased from this editorial). I really can't. (hat tip: The Wild Hunt)

How about, "Decide that you (or others on your behalf) should force people to worship your religion - because clearly all others are false - and the only difference between you and the jihadis is the name of your god".

UPDATE: Forgot the link. (It was late.)

Terrorism's bad, but faith is worse?

In case you missed it, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently wrote an article for The American Prospect. Without a subscription you can go here to see Reich rant about the "religious right".

It was recently reported that the Bush campaign had e-mailed members of the clergy, soliciting help in identifying "friendly" congregations that would do the campaign's bidding in their areas.

(snip)

When questioned about all of this, Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said, "The campaign wants people of faith to participate in the political process." Clearly, the Bushies want more than this. (snip) ... the Bush campaign wants religious groups to enter the political fray...

Ok, the Bush campaign wants to get groups who have memberships that will vote for him to help his re-election efforts. Shocking huh?

Oh, but they are religious groups, mustn't have that. After all these are tax-exempt organizations (all the parts I snipped delt with this aspect). Ok, Reich, I could buy that if I weren't an idiot. The only problem is the many years I've watched Jessie Jackson, your old boss Bill Clinton, Al Gore and numerous other Democrats stump in black churches, trolling for votes and campaign help. Believe me, we will see Mssrs. Kerry and Edwards making at least one trek to a black church before election day as well. Yet, nary a peep of protest have I heard from you Mr. Reich nor the left in general. It seems the only problem lies in the fact that these worshippers will vote for Bush.

The reason, of course, is that the ground troops of the Bush campaign are America's religious right

Point proven, thank you for that Mr. Reich...

-- mostly right-wing evangelical Protestant churches, but also right-wing Southern Baptists,

Isn't the latter one of the former?

anti-abortion Catholics,

What, Catholics who believe in a tenet of their faith? Scandalous!

and even a smattering of extreme pro-Israeli and anti-Arab Jews.

Ah yes, a little anti-semitism to wash it all down with. It all comes back to THE JOOS!

For George W. Bush, firing up the troops means firing up "friendly" right-wing congregations...

The nerve!

Oh, but it gets better...

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.

Now Reich could have defined the enemy as the ideology and culture that fuels radical Islam as opposed to the methods they employ, but that's not what he did.

No, the enemy is:

anti-modernist - I agree, but I wonder from the tone of Reich's screed if we use the term to mean the same thing. I think he may be going with a European intelligentsia definition that holds no room for religion in true modern thought.

those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority - Most people/cultures believe human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority. Funny, most Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. aren't carrying out terrorist acts against Americans. People who employ the tactic of terror to kill Americans are our enemy. Those people right now happen to be Islamic extremists, not simply believers in a higher authority.

those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life - largely covered in the previous paragraph

those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma - Again, pretty much see above. It's funny that some people believe science, logic, and reason cannot coexist with religious faith. I have faith in a higher authority, yet I don't see how that is contradicted by science (which neither proves nor disproves my beliefs), reason or logic. Is it illogical and unreasonable to believe in some mysterious force that created what is, to believe what we cannot see or prove? Yes, probably. But isn't it equally illogical and unreasonable to believe in an extraordinary amount of particular scientific occurances, against all logical odds, creating what is?

Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face. - What an astoundingly illogical conclusion. Terrorism destroys lives, but religious faith is more dangerous. Again, if Reich were differentiating between terror as tactic and ideology that begets terror that would be fine, but that's not what he's doing. He's lumping all religious believers into the category of greatest danger. That is pure religious bigotry.

Mr. Reich, I fit the category of your definiton of enemy. But, despite your utterings, I don't have any desire to kill you. I cannot promise you the same indifference from my enemy.

A Most Uncivil Spat

Economics, when you boil it down to its essence, is about the allocation of scare resources. Politics, similarly, is at its heart about the gathering of support for one's faction (which, incidentally, is why the Founding Fathers were doomed in their attempts to create an Athenian political model - and for that matter why the Athenians were doomed in the end). In other words, politics is operable in any set of people where power (whether direct or because of reputation) is at stake, not just when dealing with government. ("Office politics" is not an analogy, but a statement of fact.)

It's also a fact that those with no skin in the game often cannot understand why certain disputes break out, and how they come to diverge from their apparent original point with such ferocity - sometimes to the point that the original positions end up reversed! Hint: it's about power, either direct power (such as the government has) or reputation (in most private spheres) or even perks (such as in large corporations). It's also sad to see factional struggles break out in a group to which you are much attached.

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the dispute between AJ Drew and Ray Buckland, for three reasons: I don't know enough about it, I don't know enough about AJ Drew in general, and I owe a great deal to Ray Buckland (whose big blue book was the first book on Wicca I read, and whose later writings were very influential on my religious development). I do want to say one thing though: it's pretty crass for one to take out a domain name with the other's name just to criticize the other. Not quite up to Godwin's law standards, but certainly most uncool.

And, so far as I can tell, someone needs to remind these guys of the rule of threes.

Separation of Church and State

Chris Noble thinks it's OK for an Alabama judge to prominently display a monument of the ten commandments in his court's rotunda.

I believe that the appeals court decision is correct in a legal sense, but it's not good for the moral fabric of the nation.

But let's look a little deeper here. What is the real problem?

Is it the actual text of the Ten Commandments? If so, which one? I find it hard to believe that someone could possibly have a problem with "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal."

The Ten Commandments aren't important because they are some special super secret Judeo-Christian bit of wisdom that no one else could ever possibly understand. No, the Ten Commandments are important because they are universal truths. They are the foundations of a civil society, of one based on laws.

So what is the problem with the monument in the courthouse?

I suppose that if you believe that this is an explicitly Christian nation, then the reasoning above is OK. The problem is, not all of us are Christians.

The ten commandments, while they include some statements I agree with, are explicitly religious and explicitly monotheistic. (I'll take them apart in a few moments, so that you don't have to take that statement "on faith," as it were.) As a result, displaying them in a place where they could provide license or inhibition is simply wrong on the part of the government, both Constitutionally and morally.

If such an explicitly religious monument is allowed in a place where jurors have to pass by before sitting for trial, isn't the government, in the person of the judge, saying to them that it's OK to use their religion - rather than the law - to make judgements? Isn't it saying to me, as a Pagan, that my chances of a fair trial are diminished in that courthouse? If so - and I believe that it is so - then the moral case is against the display.

Were a judge to put up an equally universal religious principle that is non-Christian, would that be OK? Were I a judge, could I carve into the courthouse floor: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will." Even if I agreed with the sentiment, it would still be wrong for me to do so, because it is the place of the government to set and preserve the conditions for a free and just society, not to determine the form and content of that society.

(see the More... link at the bottom for an offtopic discussion of the quote I used.)

If the judge wants to put up the commandments in his chambers, I have no problem with that. To do so in the public area of the courthouse, though, is to attempt moral suasion in a way inconsistent with the Constitution and the law.

I also cannot accept the premise, frequently stated, that the ten commandments are not specifically religious and specifically monotheistic, nor that there is not a valid way to view "Thou shalt not kill" as other than a religious (moral, in this case, rather than dogmatic) assertion.

Here are the commandments, from Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, along with my gloss on the commandments as regards the American legal system.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:2-3 & Deutueronomy 5:6-7

This commandment compels worship of a particular god. This is explicitly forbidden the force of law by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:4-6 & Deutueronomy 5:8-10

This not only falls into the category of requiring worship of a particular god, it also forbids certain forms of worship altogether. This violates both the establishment and the free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. There's also a logical flaw, just as a side note. If the first generation accepts, and the second generation rejects, what happens to the third generation, which falls into both descendent categories listed?

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not aquit anyone who misuses his name. Exodus 20:7 & Deutueronomy 5:11

I actually prefer this formulation to the more common "thou shalt not take My name in vain," because the more common formulation generally is interpreted as a ban on cursing. In actual fact, I've always read this as a ban on comparisons ("I'm better than God", for example).

In any case, this is a violation of both the free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment.

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. Exodus 20:8-11 & Deutueronomy 5:12-15

Ignoring the justification of why one should not work on the Sabbath, there is still the problem that labor laws are not based on the Biblical injunction, but rather on the humanitarian arguement that overworking one's employees or one's self is cruel, and the utilitarian argument that it is counterproductive. To the extent that the law fixes a day where one is denied the ability to work altogether, in any form, it would arguably pose a violation of the takings clause, in that one's labor is generally held in the US to be one's property, available for sale. Therefore, to enact such a ban would likely be unconstitutional. (Though it would be constitutional to, for example, ban government offices from being open on certain days, whether or not that accorded with a particular religion's holy days.)

Honor your father and mother, so that your days may be long in the land of the Lord your God is giving you. Exodus 20:12 & Deutueronomy 5:16

This is certainly not a universal truth. In my view, a parent has to earn the respect of their children. Even disregarding that, though, I cannot see an argument for this as a basis of our legal tradition. Indeed, there are many situations under the law where such a sentiment is ignored, including the laws on compulsory public schooling, removal of children from an unfit parent, and more.

You shall not murder. Exodus 20:13 & Deutueronomy 5:17

This is certainly a key provision of the law, but not for moral reasons. The government, frankly, has no real interest in the life or death of any particular individual. What the laws against murder seek to do is establish a stable society. If you are under constant threat of harm, you will be constantly armed against it, and the societal disruption of murders is huge when no attempt is made to prevent them. The government has an interest in promoting a stable society; in fact, that's its main purpose.

As a Pagan, the argument I would make from a moral sense is that murder is causing harm, both to the victim and to the family and friends of the victim, and that as such it is immoral. I doubt that Chris would buy this reasoning any more than I would buy the reasoning that "murder is wrong because some god said so."

You shall not commit adultery. Exodus 20:14 & Deutueronomy 5:18

This is obviously not universal. Indeed this commandment is more observed, as it were, in the breach. The government has no interest in the sexual behavior of individuals, as long as that behavior does not cause societal disruption. So, for example, the government outlaws rape and child molestation, but not (generally) incest. And as the recent SCOTUS decision on sodomy makes clear, such laws as were passed based on this reasoning will be struck down. There has to be a clear external effect in order for the government to regulate sexual activity.

You shall not steal. Exodus 20:15 & Deutueronomy 5:19

This is encoded in law certainly, but again not because "some god said so." Nor is it encoded on the Pagan view that stealing causes harm to the victim. Rather, the injunction against stealing has to do with the government's duty to protect the property rights of individuals against encroachments. If one can legally steal another's property, than the only way to protect one's property is through armed force, which is destructive to the good order of society.

You shall not bear false whitness [sic] against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16 & Deutueronomy 5:20

This basic principle is encoded both in perjury laws and in libel/slander laws. The reason, though, is not because "some god said so." Rather, the reason is utilitarian: perjury distorts the ability of the legal system to judge wisely, while libel and slander could easily result in duelling (and frequently did, before libel, slander and duelling were all outlawed).

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17 & Deutueronomy 5:21

Certainly, the government lacks any right to ban what someone thinks. Since there is a separate provision against stealing, this provision can only be read as banning the thought itself - the feeling of envy. While this may be an admirable sentiment, though again more often observed in the breach, it is hardly necessary to our system of laws.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will" is from Aleister Crowley.

The formulation of Law (in the moral sense) that I use is "Do what thou wilt, an harm none", which is much more universal, being libertarian rather than hedonistic. Still, even this is not a true universal, given the existence of those who deny free will.

The more common formulation of this is "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." I prefer the way given in the last paragraph, because the two statements basically break down into Love and Truth, and I feel that Truth has more precedence than Love, but Love controls and moderates Truth. One must do what is right - even at a heavy cost - rather than counting the costs before determining what is right to do.

Fantasy Policy in a Fantasy World

Tim Blair is astonished at a Christian school which has a "fantasy policy" (whereby they've banned Harry Potter books from their library). I'm not sure why Tim's astonished, frankly. There are members of every religion and spirituality who live in a world of fantasy, and the last thing that they'd want to do is promote a fantasy alternative to their own.