10.1.04

Dean Forgets His Religion

Dean Criticizes Bush On Stem-Cell Ban Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean criticized President Bush on Friday for restricting stem-cell research based on religious beliefs, even though he now says his own faith affected his decision to extend legal rights to gay couples. The difference, Dean said, was that Bush's decision could deprive people of the ability to recover from serious illness, while his was an issue of morality or ethics. ... "I think we ought to make scientific decisions, not theological and theoretical decisions," Dean told voters at a town-hall meeting. "I think that what the president did on stem-cell research was based on his religious beliefs, and I think that is wrong."

I would say that to "deprive people of the ability to recover from serious illness" is manifestly a moral or ethical issue. I agree with Dean that Bush made the wrong call on stem cells, but I'm not happy with his technocratic rhetoric. Too often, politicians of both sides try to hide their moral choices behind the veneer of scientific objectivity. I'm starting to tune out any claims that we need to base policy on "sound science," because in the mouths of politicians it seems to mean so little. Yes, we need science to help us understand the consequences of our actions, and Bush did misunderstand, or misrepresent, the science of stem cell research in overestimating the number and utility of stem cell lines currently available. But in the end there's always a moral decision to be made. Politicians need to honestly take responsibility for their ethical vision, rather than dodging it with the claim that science will tell us what to do.
Stentor Danielson, 20:42,

We Must Away Ere Break Of Day ...

Anyone who reads the Brunching board has probably already seen this, but I recently added a copy to my own website: My Iraq-related parody of the Dwarves' song from The Hobbit.
Stentor Danielson, 18:56,

Aidan?

Via Matthew Yglesias, I see that the top boys' names in 2003 was the trio of Aidan, Jaden, and Caden. Sadly Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur didn't make the cut. What really surprised me, though, was how many of the names are ones I would have associated with the opposite gender. Morgan*, Cameron, and Addison are now boys, while Riley, Mackenzie, and Taylor are girls. I don't have any philosophical principle about gender-shifting names (though there's the practical consideration that our antiquated title and pronoun system requires us to know the subject's gender), but it was surprising that my instincts would differ from those of so many parents.

*It took me a while to get used to the fact that Morgan Leah in The Sword of Shannara was male.
Stentor Danielson, 12:09,

9.1.04

Da Rolling Mills Of New Joisey

New Jersey To Recognize Gay Couples The debate was expected to be volatile, but members of the New Jersey Senate instead showed broad support on Thursday for a measure to give the state's recognition to same-sex domestic partnerships. The measure, passed by a 23-to-9 vote, goes to Gov. James E. McGreevey, who has said he is eager to sign it. ... The legislation, which also applies to heterosexual couples over age 62, permits those registered as domestic partners to make critical medical decisions for each other. It requires insurance companies to offer health care coverage to domestic partners equivalent to that for spouses. ... Steven Goldstein, who has directed lobbying for the bill for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights organization, said: "I'm on Cloud 27. It's not just that we won. It's that we won without rancor." ... The bill received scant public attention until the Legislature returned from recess this week, and there were no hearings. The Assembly approved it by a single vote in December. The bill's opponents had protested that public debate was stymied. ... The measure was also opposed by the Catholic Conference of New Jersey, which in a letter to senators on Wednesday said that "it attempts to cast aside marriage as our legal standard of legitimate cohabitation."

If the Catholic Conference of New Jersey is worried that marriage is being cast aside, perhaps they ought to support letting homosexual couples participate in marriage. That way creating other types of legally recognized cohabitation wouldn't be necessary.

Turning to the other criticism, "scant public attention" is right. I'd heard nary a word about this decision, despite a heavy dose of blog-reading, until I ran across a link on Prometheus 6 a day and a half later. Granted, the gain is fairly small -- far short of civil unions -- but the Human Rights Campaign seems to fire off mass emailings at the drop of a hat, so you'd think I'd have gotten some triumphant message from them by now.

I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the complaint that the bill was rushed through without public debate. My guess is that such publicity would have been to the opponents' advantage, giving them the opportunity to frame it as the first step on the road to destruction of the family and thus frighten off culturally moderate legislators. However, the margin of victory is wide enough that I think it still would have passed. And it's instances like this -- in which the legislature firmly backs progress of its own accord -- that need more publicity. Anti-gay-marriage folks have made a lot of rhetorical hay out of the idea that gay rights are being foisted undemocratically on us by culturally liberal elite judges. A robust public debate would also help to reinforce the idea that gay rights are not something desired by only a few gay activists, but are something that is rooted in the sense of justice that a large swath of the populace has.
Stentor Danielson, 23:25,

Arlen Specter's Not Sure Where He Stands

Specter Points To Seniority At Kickoff ... Joe Hoeffel, a Montgomery County Democrat who is unopposed in the primary [for one of Pennsylvania's seats in the US Senate], contends [Republican incumbent Arlen] Specter has damaged Pennsylvania by abandoning his moderate record in support of President Bush's agenda. ... Specter dismissed the attacks out of hand. ''In a political campaign, my opponents are likely to say anything,'' Specter said in Philadelphia. ''I have a very strong record of independence.'' ... But he and [PA Senator Rick] Santorum also stressed that Specter has been a ''team player'' for Republicans and the Bush administration on key fights, such as the tax cuts or confirming Bush's judiciary nominees.

So when his opponent says he's helped Bush, Specter says it's not true. But when his ally says the same thing, he agrees. You might want to get your story straight, there, Arlen. The most charitable reading I can give it is that Hoeffel says that Specter's allegience to Bush is a change from his past moderate ways, whereas Santorum claims that the two are consistent, and indeed that Specter has shown that the Bush agenda is palatable to moderates.

This has to be taken in context of the central claim of Specter's Republican challenger, Pat Toomey, who says Specter is too moderate. Toomey and Hoeffel take basically opposite positions on whether Specter is a moderate (yes and no), and whether Pennsylvania ought to have a moderate Senator (no and yes). Specter's position seems to be "who cares how moderate I am -- I brought in the pork for this state." If pork is what Pennsylvanians really care about, then Hoeffel is out of luck, seeing as Congressional Republicans have done a good job of locking Democratic districts out of the spending frenzy.
Stentor Danielson, 20:22,

8.1.04

More On Dean's Religion

As an addendum to the previous post, the article I linked to repeats a framing of the issue of religion in politics that politically liberal Christians are going to have to fight against:

In broad terms, it [the debate over politics and religion] pits Christians who look at the Bible less literally and argue that the Gospels never quote Jesus talking specifically about homosexuality against more conservative Christians who take a more literal approach and point to scripture in the New and Old Testaments that they believe forbids homosexuality. For instance, Leviticus 18:22, according to the King James version of the Bible, says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The paragraph I quoted makes it out to be an issue of people who read the Bible literally versus people who want to take it more loosely. Under this framing -- favored by politically and theologically conservative Christians -- liberal religion is about finding loopholes, ways to get out of the conservative mandates of the Bible's message. Dean's quotes, however, challenge this view, pointing toward the liberal-friendly framing that it's a question of historically-informed critical reading of the Bible versus superficial literalism. Dean's case is not a defensive "the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality," it's a positive "the message of the Bible demands adherence to principles which logically lead to the conclusion that we should allow homosexual unions." Wishy-washy religious liberalism is convenient, but it implicitly concedes the terms of the debate to religious conservatives.
Stentor Danielson, 12:59,

Dean Gets Religion

Certainly there's a large helping of political calcualtion to Howard Dean's recent spate of statements about his faith shortly after being criticized for being too secular. But I think his apparent secularism is more a New Englander's reluctance to drop the J-word than a lack of religious feeling. He seems to get what Christianity's role in politics should be.

Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision On Gay Unions Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it. "The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people." ... Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did. "My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

The first statement from Dean I don't care much for. Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but that doesn't mean that God approves of alcohol abuse. The second bit, however, is how Christianity should enter into politics. It's consistent with Dean's earlier statement that:

''Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind ... 'He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything ... He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.''

It's not about declaring personal faith in the divinity of Jesus, or about believing you've been divinely appointed to your role. It's about being motivated to show "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." Interestingly, immediately after listing those qualities as "fruits of the spirit," Paul says that "against such things there is no law" -- meaning that these are generally acceptable to people of many religions and nonreligious philosophies. That fits in well with Dean's objection -- phrased in a way that makes people think he's anti-religious -- to the "fundamentalist preachers" who would base our law on uniquely conservative Christian dogma. It's a sort of Rawlsian spirituality, promoting core values that can be justified under many different worldviews.

There's a contrast in the political sensibilities of the Old and New Testaments that parallels the contrast between henotheism and universalism. The God of the Old Testament is the God of Israel, a God who seems more interested in making his people victorious over the Caananite worshippers of Baal than in getting the Caananites to worship him. As befits a deity with an interest in a particular people at a particular time, he imparts to them a detailed code of law (forming the bulk of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) describing how they are to run their society. The God of the New Testament, on the other hand, turns his attention to the world at large, which was and would be inhabited by many different people with different cultures and different situations. The Jews at the time were hoping for a henotheistic messiah, who would solve their particular current problems (oppression by the Romans). Instead, Jesus and his followers articulate a set of principles -- most importantly the command to love one's neighbor as oneself -- that, in combination with knowledge about the particular situation, can be used to derive more practically applicable specific laws. (UPDATE: Via fantastic planet, I'm reminded of a scripture reference for Jesus' focus on fundamental principles instead of specific applications.)

Politically Christian conservatives often seem to yearn for henotheism. They want America to be the chosen nation of God. And they want to find explicit legal prescriptions in the verses of the Bible. It's perhaps no coincidence that the most popular Bible verse in conservative cultural politics is the prohibition on homosexuality in the Old Testament book of Leviticus.

But the teachings of Jesus, as I read them, don't let us off that easy. They don't give us the final answer. While I believe that Dean is right to say that Democratic policies are the correct particular implementation of God's general spirit, I wouldn't give that interpretation the stamp of divine certainty. A Christian politician must struggle to remain true to God's general spirit while taking responsibility for his or her particular interpretation (rather than ducking responsibility with a "hey, that's just what God says. Go argue with him").
Stentor Danielson, 12:47,

7.1.04

Food Terrorism

Trespass Laws For Farms Get Tougher Animal-rights activists are sneaking into barns to snap photos of penned-up pigs, freeing chickens from cages and vandalizing farm equipment. In response, farm groups and rural law enforcement agencies launched a massive lobbyingeffort this year to push a bill through the Legislature to strengthen trespassing laws on farms and ranches. They did it in the name of homeland security. ... Effective immediately, a trespasser on land or buildings where "cattle, goats, pigs, fowl or any other animal is being raised, bred, fed or held for the purpose of food for human consumption" can be fined $100 for a first offense and, for a second offense, up to $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail. ... In February, two women sneaked into a Corcpork Co. pig shed in Tulare County through a ventilation-access panel. The company, which markets pork products under the Farmer John label, says it has 90,000 animals at its disease-controlled facility. No one can enter without showering and wearing sanitary protective clothing. The women managed to flash off a few shots from a digital camera before employees caught them and called the police.

The new law doesn't strike me as unreasonable in terms of the penalties imposed, especially if there are other, similar trespassing laws already on the books. But I wonder about the effectiveness of using increased penalties to prevent terrorism. If al-Qaida can find people willing to die in the process of committing terrorist acts, I'm sure they can find people willing to face a fine or some jail time. At best, deterring non-terrorist trespassing might diminish the stock of "how-to" knowledge that a terrorist could draw on. To prevent food supply terrorism, what's needed is increased security so that people don't get into the plants to do the act, rather than increased punishment after it's been carried out.
Stentor Danielson, 13:34,

6.1.04

Pennsylvania Update II

Farm Bill Veto: A Victory For Environmentalists PennFuture and the Army for a Clean Environment (ACE) both praised Governor Ed Rendell for his decision to veto House Bill 1222, a bill which that had potential to strip local governments of all rights to protect citizens from pollution caused by factory farms. The governor's action comes despite a major pressure campaign from agribusiness, which had forced the bill through the state House and Senate with no hearings or public notice. ... In other developments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Dec. 31 it may start regulating 15 more pollutants contained in the nearly 6 million tons of sewage sludge that are used or disposed of in the United States each year. ... Also Wednesday, EPA denied a petition from 73 labor, environment and farm groups for an immediate moratorium on land-based uses for sewage sludge. That would have affected more than 3 million tons of sludge used each year as fertilizer.

My impression had been that Rendell was inclined not to veto this bill. But placing heavy emphasis on the results of the request for public opinion (assuming he actually did) gives an advantage to opponents of the bill. There are a lot more individuals who can be motivated to call in by the idea that toxic sludge might get dumped in their communities than can be motivated by the idea that certain agricultural practices may be interfered with. The sludge users could mount a defensive campaign to try to convince people that the sludge is harmless, but I have trouble seeing a way they could get people to want sludge used so bad that they'd actively support the bill.

I need to find some additional sources on this issue. The Times-News's anti-sludge bias is pretty apparent -- for example, almost all the paragraphs of the story that I didn't quote were quotes from Dante Picciano of ACE. I think it's less about favoring liberalism or environmentalism, and more about supporting the hometown -- similar to the way you wouldn't expect balanced coverage of the Lehighton-Berwick football game. The issue has been framed as "local communities versus outside (even out-of-state) companies." Combine that with the presumably greater availability and willingness of local environmentalists to speak to a reporter from a podunk newspaper, and you've got a bit of a slant to the coverage.
Stentor Danielson, 09:15,