There are many things wrong with the values reflected in American political culture and yes, some of those wrongs have become even further entrenched under President Obama. But for whatever else he accomplished that was good, President Bush's legacy will always carry a significant black mark for (among other things), his cowboy-cavalier attitude with which he disregarded the human dignity of non-Americans in the course of carrying out a war against terror. Exhibit #235 [deleted as unnecessary snark] comes from his memoir:
Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was "Damn right" and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives . . . .
The notion that waterboarding saved lives has been denied by our allies. As for whether this all turns on good-faith hand-wringing about whether waterboarding amounts to torture, David Luban explains:
The legal definition of torture is just twenty years old, and - to say the least - torture cases raising the issue of where to draw the boundary between "severe" and "not severe" aren’t popping up on the dockets of courts the world over like slip-and-fall cases. This isn’t a question for lawyers. This is a question of common sense. Let’s stop being ridiculous.
So: does waterboarding inflict severe suffering? If you want to do a quick, common-sense reality check, try this. Blow all the air out of your lungs. Then stare at your watch and try not to inhale for ninety seconds by the clock. Then take one quick half-breath and immediately do it again. Now imagine that you’re tied down while you’re doing it and water is pouring over your head and rolling up your nose. Or, if you’re really ambitious, get in the shower and turn it on and try the same hold-your-breath-with-no-air-in-your-lungs experiment with your head tilted up and the water pouring up your nose. Then decide for yourself whether it’s severe suffering.
On some issues, President Bush has been targeted for blame unfairly. This is not one of them.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Having someone run for office in order to get a graphic anti-abortion ad on the air has sparked some controversy. (My own view is that, provided that the ads are run at times when children are not likely to be watching, they are a legitimate contribution to the public conversation.)
You may have heard that an Oklahoma court enjoined the newly enacted state ban on the use of Sharia (and international law) in court. The opinion is now available. Here are the plaintiff's claims
[P]laintiff asserts that the moment Oklahoma’s constitution is amended, his First Amendment rights will be violated: (1) by Oklahoma’s official condemnation of his religion/faith as reflected through the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution banning state courts’ use or consideration of Sharia Law, (2) by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed, and (3) by the excessive entanglement of the state courts with religion that would result from the amendment as the state courts in implementing the amendment would have to determine what is and is not encompassed in Sharia Law.
I'm not entirely persuaded that a ban on Sharia law violates the First Amendment, but I do think that a categorical ban is unnecessary and unhelpful, especially if we care about the sort of robust pluralism spoken of by folks such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who explored the question of "living under more than one jurisdiction." My concern is foreclosing the possibility that Sharia law can shape the private ordering of Muslim citizens; I of course would oppose using Sharia law to define the public order. If the law lacks the space to recognize that some of our commitments are not easily translated into a unitary legal regime, I think that Christians have cause to worry as well.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
A new study finds that while giving to churches is down (measured as average annual giving per member), giving to religious charities is up (measured as size of average annual donation). This is intriguing, and I wonder if part of this development is due to increasing global awareness among American Christians. I could be totally wrong on this, but my sense is that Christians, thanks in part to the efforts of folks like Rick Warren, Ron Sider, and yes, even Bono, have become less content to focus on new cushions for the choir loft, and more interested in helping secure clean water in Sudan. (I have no statistics to back this up, though, so please point me in the right direction if such statistics do exist.) Another intriguing statistic: 92% of charitable giving by those under age 25 is to churches or religious charities.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
In the same vein as the "I had an abortion" t-shirts, the latest trend is the #ihadanabortion hashtag on twitter. Both are designed to remove any stigma from the decision to have an abortion. Consider this explanation:
Just as always, not all feminists or pro-choicers agree with the concept. "Not sure what the #ihadanabortion hashtag is meant to accomplish," one woman tweeted. "Pro-choice is one thing but this just seems needlessly provocative." In response, someone wrote: "Why is saying #ihadanabortion 'provocative?' I had my wisdom teeth out. Is that needlessly provocative?
Apart from (but not entirely unrelated to) the debate over abortion's legality and constitutionally protected status, there is the question of stigma. If we ever arrive at the point where abortion is viewed as the moral equivalent of the removal of one's wisdom teeth, the pro-life movement will have failed in much starker terms than those presented by the Roe v. Wade regime.
Usha Rodrigues has posted a new paper, "Entity and Identity." Judging by the abstract, it should be of interest to those of us who care about associational life:
The function, indeed the very existence, of nonprofit corporations is under-theorized. Recent literature suggests that only preferential tax treatment adequately explains the persistence of the nonprofit form. This answer is incomplete. Drawing on psychology’s social identity theory, this Article posits that the nonprofit form can create a special "warm-glow" identity that cannot be replicated by the for-profit form. For example, a local nonprofit food cooperative is selling more than the free-range eggs or organic strawberries that Whole Foods and other for-profits market so effectively. The co-op offers community participation and an investment in local farms, a distinctive ethos that is incompatible with the profit motive. Ascribing a special meaning to the nonprofit form allows us to view afresh a variety of issues regarding the appropriate legal treatment of nonprofits.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Today's Star-Tribune has an article about the DFL mailing depicting a priest nondenominational preacher wearing a collar, and Mark Dayton, the DFL candidate for governor, (kind of) condemns the mailing:
"I believe the brochure's picture showing a man of the cloth is inappropriate," Dayton said in a statement. "I believe that it is inappropriate to bring religion into a campaign as this image and others do."
I'm not sure what he means by "as this image and others do." My own misgivings have nothing to do with the DFL bringing religion into a campaign, but with the message that a reasonable observer might glean from the particular way they brought religion into this campaign. Dayton subsequently points out that many faith leaders objected to Gov. Pawlenty's budget cuts, so he must not be categorically opposed to religious references in political discourse. Still, we need to be careful not to allow a particular ham-handed invocation of religion in politics to further contribute to the privatization of religion.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
I have not yet received this campaign postcard from the Minnesota DFL party, but thanks to Grant Gallicho over at Commonweal for bringing it to my attention. In case you can't quite read it, the priest is wearing a button that says "Ignore the Poor." I'm not sure that it will be obvious to all voters, but it seems to be a not-so-subtle swipe at the Archbishop's decision to focus on the marriage issue. Who could have thought that this postcard would be a good idea?
UPDATE: I still question the wisdom of this mailing, but the DFL has clarified that it aims at a specific GOP candidate who is also a (nondenominational) preacher and is not intended to be anti-Catholic.
