Congress just passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The vote was unanimous in the Senate, and 414 to 1 in the House. It will make most forms of discrimination based on genetic testing illegal. Except, of course, killing based on prenatal diagnosis of genetic conditions..... Some things about this world in which we live just make no sense to me.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Quote of the year
Some blog posts write themselves. Today's paper carries another article about our dean's decision not to allow students to satisfy the public service graduation requirements by volunteering at Planned Parenthood. A priceless excerpt:
"It's discouraging," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kathi Di Nicola said of Mengler's decision. "We're a front-line health-care provider for those on the margins of life."
The Huge Number of Americans in Prison, Revisited
Another informative, illuminating post by Bill Stuntz, here.
Religion in Politics, Revisited (for the Umpteenth Time)
A progressive evangelical movement?
posted by Rebecca Sager
“There is a thirst for two things in this country - a thirst for spirituality and a thirst for social justice”.
– Jim Wallis (2008)
When people hear the words “progressive” and “evangelical” together, a sort of cognitive dissonance occurs. Meshing the notions of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson with ideas of social justice is not something most people easily understand. For the people inside this new movement, however, being an evangelical and progressive is a natural fit.
This spring I went to a fundraiser for Tom Periello, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia. The small crowd was generally young and professional, and after talking to them it was clear that this was not just about raising money, it was about changing the dynamic between religion and politics and creating a new progressive religious movement. In the crowd were movement activists including members and employees of Sojourners, Common Good Strategies (CGS), and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), all organizations that are part of a new social movement that is aligning Catholics, evangelicals, and other Christians.
Members of this progressive religious movement see their work as fundamentally different from other conservative religious activists. As one founding member told me “How can you be a Christian and not care about issues like poverty and health care?” Like the others I spoke with, he told me the 2004 election was a turning point and call to action, expressing concern for social justice, a hope for something better in 2008, and an affirmation that faith has a new voice in politics.
[Rread the rest of this interesting post, at The Immanent Frame.]
Defending my "groan"
Rob adds his thoughts, and thereby fills out the picture, of the Kent School District case. He writes: "[T]he legitimate pedagogical objectives of a high school are much different than a university. A university is, or at least should be, a broad and vibrant marketplace of competing moral claims. I'm not sure that model is appropriate for a high school." I agree. He asks, "[b]ut even if we disagree with the school's decision not to approve Truth given its exclusion of non-Christians from voting membership, do we really want to give Truth a constitutional right to demand that it be approved?" Maybe not. I did not say that we do.
My frustration was focused, and was directed at least as much at the District as at the Ninth Circuit: Even if we factor in Rob's "official approval" point, my own claim is that it is not "discrimination" -- at least, it is not "discrimination" in the sense that gives normative heft to anti-"discrimination" laws -- for a Christian club to limit membership to Christians. And, I see no reason -- even if we understand the mission of a high school in the way Rob suggests -- for a public high school in a liberal (properly understood) society to have any qualms about providing "equal access" (as the law requires) to "Christian" clubs that are for "Christians." Such clubs are doing doing nothing wrong, nothing illiberal, nothing that they should be ashamed of, and nothing that a public school should worry about endorsing, when they construct their membership in accord with their identities.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Defending the Ninth Circuit
I'm not quite ready to share Rick's "groan" in response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Truth v. Kent School District. I find maddening a university's decision not to approve Christian student groups that "discriminate" against non-Christians, but this case involves a high school. And this is not a Good News Club-type case in which a Christian group is denied access to public facilities; here the "Truth" Christian group sought status as an officially approved curricular group, which would allow them to use student council funds and access the PA system for making announcements, among other privileges.
More fundamentally, though, I think the legitimate pedagogical objectives of a high school are much different than a university. A university is, or at least should be, a broad and vibrant marketplace of competing moral claims. I'm not sure that model is appropriate for a high school. In this case, the school district's policies portrayed officially approved student groups (as opposed to clubs like Young Life that meet before or after school) as vehicles by which to teach tolerance and inclusiveness (among other values). This is not to suggest that all officially approved groups were uncontroversial -- the Gay-Straight Student Alliance gained approval, which makes the Christian group's exclusion a bit jarring, I'll admit. But even if we disagree with the school's decision not to approve Truth given its exclusion of non-Christians from voting membership, do we really want to give Truth a constitutional right to demand that it be approved?
As Rick himself recently wrote in a very thoughtful essay, it is by no means obvious how we should expect the First Amendment, which is designed to “constrain the government from interfering in or directing a diverse and pluralistic society’s conversations about the common good,” to apply in a context in which the state is charged with “producing not just certain facilities, but certain core values, loyalties, and commitments."
Put simply, I'm always willing to groan at the Ninth Circuit, but I need a bit more convincing in this case.
Reno on the death penalty
Rusty Reno has some interesting thoughts on capital punishment, and the Court's recent lethal-injection decision, here, at the First Things blog. A taste:
We live in complicated times, and I’ll admit that I have found it reassuring that American voters have resisted the sirens of moral relativism, soft-headed liberalism, and rhetorical simplifications. The popularity of the death penalty is not a function of primitive desires for revenge that overtake beer-drinking guys with guns in their pickups. Support for capital punishment is not a sign of a latent lust for violence in American society. It no more reflects a culture of death than does the Book of Deuteronomy. On the contrary, persistent support stems from a collective confidence that some acts are deeply wicked, and that as a society we need to respond with the firmest possible “NO!”
I share the sentiment. I think any person with a sense of our collective responsibility to moral truth should. But I also worry that times have changed. In his First Things essay “Christians and the Death Penalty,” Joseph Bottum meditated on our modern political condition. As he observed, the secular state is not vested with the same divine purpose as the older sovereignty of Christian kings. In fact, one feature of our American consciousness is the conviction that the older view of sovereignty was overinflated and dangerously sacred in its self-image. If this is so, then perhaps we wrongly look to the courtroom and prison and other instruments of the state for fullest expression of our shared moral vision. The expectation is especially suspect when it comes to what Bottum calls “high justice” of a properly authorized and painstakingly orchestrated execution on behalf of justice.
To a great extent, the American experiment in limited, secular sovereignty has won out in the West. After their bloody modern experiments in the deification of the nation-state, Europeans societies have embraced a much more modest view of the moral and spiritual role of their governments. Not coincidentally, they have also taken away from government the power to inflict the death penalty. The Bible consistently teaches that God alone has the power of life and death. Human authorities rightly possess that power only as authorized by God himself. Thus, to abolish the death penalty sends a clear message: The secular state has no avenue to divine authorization. Given the history of Europe and the countless dead bodies piled up by governments self-ordained to serve the various modern gods—the People, History, the Master Race, and the Workers—it seems to me that the European abolition of the death penalty has been extremely prudent. As John Paul II knew only too well, the modern ideological state serves strange and bloodthirsty gods, and is easily tempted to use death as a means to assault and destroy society.
Perhaps because we inherited an Anglo-Saxon system for constraining governmental power, America has seen many unjust social policies, some with lethal consequences, but never political prisoners marched to the gallows for mass execution. This goes a long way, I think, toward explaining our singularity. Europeans view our loyalty to capital punishment as barbaric, but, in truth, we retain the death penalty in large part because we have no rich history of barbarism to give us a sober sense of the need to remove the sacred power of the sword from the hands of the secular state.
Prudence is easy after the fact, but the wise seek to avoid evils before they overwhelm us. We would do well to give some collective thought to our present situation. Global terrorism now requires the already powerful security apparatus of Western governments to extend their reach. Today, closed-circuit TV puts the city of London under constant observation. American intelligence services monitor global Internet traffic, and secret operations now seem to be a matter of course. In these and many other ways, our government and the governments of our allies project power ever more deeply into the fabric of our lives.
This expansion of state power is necessary. Those we elect must do exactly what John Paul II identifies as the bottom-line responsibility of civil authority: defend society. But we also need to exercise caution. These days our government seems compelled to operate secret prisons in various places around the globe and to hold prisoners without trial. Such policies, however justified, however temporary, however rightly criticized by Congress and duly corrected by the courts, cannot help but remind us of methods once used by the Nazis and the Soviets. It’s a chilling thought, especially since we continue to vest our government with the power to execute. Therefore, in these perilous times a prudent citizen should seek the abolition of the death penalty. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Reactions?
Floridians will have chance to reject Blaine and help kids.
If you care about religious freedom and educational opportunity, move to Florida, quickly, and vote (only if it's legal, of course):
With a hallmark piece of tax reform safely on the ballot, opposition melted Friday against a proposal to enshrine in the state Constitution a protection for private-school vouchers.
The Taxation and Budget Reform Commisison voted 19-6 to give voters a chance in November to undo a 2006 court ruling that struck down a school voucher program. The citizen panel meets every 20 years and has the power to put amendments directly on the ballot.
The amendment, if approved, would reverse a Florida Supreme Court decision that threw out the state's voucher program for students in poorly performing schools. The amendment would give the Legislature the power to use state money to pay for students to attend programs deemed ``alternatives to the public school system.''
The commission's vote Friday followed a hard-fought debate on Thursday when it agreed to place a major tax reform before voters: asking them to eliminate property taxes that pay for schools and force the Legislature to expand and raise sales taxes to replace those taxes.
This will be the second amendment on the ballot designed to reverse the court ruling. The panel already approved an amendment that would remove the constitutional ban on using taxpayer money for religious-based or church-run schools and institutions.
More here, from the Miami Herald.
Misunderstanding "discrimination", again
In Truth v. Kent School District, (9th Cir., April 25, 2008), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Washington state school district did not violate either the federal Equal Access Act nor the First Amendment when it applied its non-discrimination policy to "Truth", a Bible study club seeking recognition as a student group. The school said the group must remove from its charter a requirement that limits membership to those who sign a fundamentalist Christian statement of faith.
Groan. It is not, in my view, "discrimination" -- at least, it is not "discrimination" in the sense that gives normative heft to anti-"discrimination" laws for a Christian club to limit membership to Christians, nor is there any reason for a liberal (properly understood) government -- one that (quite appropriately) rejects the idea that political, social, or legal rights may be tied to professions of faith -- to worry about providing "equal access" to such clubs.
Catholic Children's Society goes "secular"
The Bishop of Nottingham Malcolm McMahon says his diocese will cut its ties with an adoption agency because it cannot accept the government’s new laws on homosexual rights.
Bishop Malcolm McMahon said he and the trustees of the Catholic Children’s Society adoption agency felt that they had been forced into the decision by the Sexual Orientation Regulations which bans discrimination against gays in the provision of goods and services.
The law would compel the diocese in certain circumstances to place children in the care of same-sex couples.
“We have been coerced into this, I am not happy about it at all,” Bishop McMahon said. “The regulations have coerced the children’s society into going against the Church’s teaching, and we don’t wish to do that.” . . .The Nottingham agency was founded in 1948 by the Congregation of the Sisters of St Joseph of Peace. It finds couples and individuals willing to adopt and prepares them to meet the criteria for adoption. The couples are then matched with children put up for adoption by social workers.
The government pushed through laws designed to encourage greater use of adoption in 2002, and as part of the reforms, gay couples were legally allowed to adopt for the first time.
The gay rights laws, introduced under the 2006 Equality Act, later stipulated that adoption agencies that rejected same-sex couples could be breaking the law.
The Catholic agencies have been given until the end of this year to comply with the regulations.
Other Catholic adoption agencies – which together find new families for nearly 250 children a year – are still considering ways of remaining open in spite of the regulations.
Thoughts? Should legislatures exempt agencies like the Catholic Children's Agency from the reach of laws like the 2006 "Equality Act"? Should agencies like the CCA submit to such laws?