in which Elizabeth talks a variety of politics (and brattily decides she doesn't feel like cut-taggi

[hermionesviolin]

Recently i was thinking yet again about how i’ve changed since i was in high school, and i realized that my politics haven’t changed all that much.

I’m still a vegetarian. I still believe abortion is morally wrong (though i reluctantly support its legalization, which i don’t think i did in high school) and i still oppose the death penalty. Mostly since i’ve been at college i’ve actually actively engaged with political issues (something i didn’t do in high school) so i actually have opinions on a lot of things i didn’t before, and my inclinations are sometimes surprising.

I’m troubled by this portion from a NYTimes article on the lesbian Methodist decision:

The prosecutor, a minister, argued that the Book of Discipline, the church law, barred gays from the ministry. But the jury concluded that while the Book of Discipline said homosexuality was "incompatible with Christian teaching," it offered no clear declaration on whether gay men or lesbians could join the clergy. In a statement that accompanied the verdict, the jury also said the Book of Discipline encouraged inclusiveness in the church.

If a clergy member actively participates in something that is incompatible with that denomination’s teaching, how can that person be a clergy member? If adultery (for example) is contrary, wouldn’t a clergy member participating in adultery be defrocked, or at least told to stop? I don’t think homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, so maybe it was just a case of a jury using bad reasoning to give a good verdict. Of course it’s deeply painful when you know what the “right” call is, but you have to say something else given the way the rules are. (This, of course, is when you work to change the rules.)

Although there is this:

"In my considered opinion and judgment, the United Methodist Church has never declared the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching," said Jack Tuell, a retired bishop viewed by many as a top authority on the church's rulebook, the Book of Discipline.
-Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter

Will Baude interviewed Eugene Volokh and asked "Most (hopefully all) scholars of Constitutional Law can name some laws that they think are constitutional but undesirable-- things that the government legally can do, but shouldn't anyway. What about the reverse? Are there any laws or policies that you think would be on-the-whole good policies to have, if only the Constitution permitted them?" I was pleased to see Eugene say "I'm not an expert on this, but my sense is that the privilege against self-incrimination is a bad idea. I don't see why the prosecutors shouldn't be able to subpoena the defendant and ask him to explain just where he was the night of this-and-such. [...]" as i’ve never understood why you were allowed to not answer questions based on the fact that they might help prove your guilt, since the whole point of a trial is to establish guilt or innocence. (And of course it’s almost self-defeating, since pleading the 5th means you have something to hide, so while they may not have proof, the jury will be prejudiced against you.)

I liked this NYTimes article on the Pledge of Allegiance case.

According to another group of religious individuals, 32 Christian and Jewish clergy members who take the opposite side in the case, reciting the pledge with "under God" invites a troubling kind of civic blasphemy. If children are supposed to utter the phrase without meaning it as an affirmation of personal faith, the group's brief asserts, "then every day, government asks millions of schoolchildren to take the name of the Lord in vain."

I had never thought of it that way. It makes a lot of sense, though. If the words don’t mean anything, why are they there? If they do mean something, then it’s religiously discriminatory.

Personally, i think “under God” should be taken out of the Pledge and “In God We Trust” taken off of the money. Being hardcore about the power of words, and about honesty (i am mostly silent in church, because i refuse to sing/speak that which would, from my mouth, be an untruth) i am more concerned about the Pledge because that is something people (are encouraged to) say, while few people actually pay attention to any of the appearance of money. I have also long been troubled by the fact that witnesses pledge (on a Bible no less) to tell the truth “So help you God.” I think not so much because it felt like forcible establishment of religion or whatever, but because, what about those who don’t believe in (the Christian) God?

A lot of this Lileks piece reminds me why i don’t read Lileks daily anymore, but the opener is rather perfect:

Imagine if you woke from an operation and discovered that your tumor was gone. You’d think: I suppose that’s a good thing. But. You learned that the hospital might profit from the operation. You learned that the doctor who made the diagnosis had decided to ignore all the other doctors who believed the tumor could be discouraged if everyone protested the tumor in the strongest possible terms, and urged the tumor to relent. How would you feel? You’d be mad. You’d look up at the ceiling of your room and nurse your fury until you came to truly hate that butcher. And when he came by to see how you were doing, you’d have only one logical, sensible thing to say: YOU TOOK IT OUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. PUT IT BACK!

"Some of us may not sympathize, for example, with American policy toward Cuba, but when Fidel Castro imprisons dozens of peaceful dissidents and executes people for hijacking a ferry in order to reach freedom, we must call the wrath of heaven down on his repression."
--from Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights by William Schulz, as quoted by Nat Hentoff

WORD.

I boggled (at AI, not at Hentoff or Schulz) as he continued:

I remain deeply puzzled at those who pride themselves as being on the left who regard the prisoners I have named as the victims of a United States policy of aggression against Cuba that keeps "provoking" Castro to lock up these threats to national security.

This is how Amnesty International speaks to these admirers of Castro's revolutionary socialism: "While Amnesty International believes that nothing can justify the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience or other violations of fundamental human rights and continues to condemn Cuba for these violations, it also recognizes the negative effect of the U.S. embargo on the full range of human rights in Cuba, and therefore calls on the United States to review its policy."

I am opposed to the embargo, but I have followed Castro's contempt for human rights throughout his regime, starting long before the U.S. embargo. He didn't need provocation to act like the dictator he is. So, I thoroughly agree with Amnesty that nothing can justify his Mugabe-like brutishness.

Honestly, i’m interested in issues, not in people. Okay, that sounds wrong. I mean i’m not interested in bitching about people who are creating policy but rather i’m interested in discussing the policy itself.

Should Kerry win in November, anyone who has been spouting “Anyone But Bush” forfeits all rights to complain about Kerry during his term. Anyone who has said “Problematic as Kerry is, I think he’s better than Bush” retains their rights to complain about Kerry during his term.

Hmm, various sign language signs are offensive stereotypes. One learns new things everyday. The fact that "in China, the sign for a Westerner is a hand depicting a round eye" gives me pause when thinking about changing the sign for “Chinese” in Western cultures, but while i can’t speak for any Asian cultures, i know slant-eyes were/are a term of derision in many Western cultures, so that gives me pause. Generally the changes look good to me (though there needs to be a better one for “gay” -- and does sign language have a sign for “lesbian”? gay’s so short that maybe we should just fingerspell it). I know i would personally be uncomfortable making signs that mimicked insults, because i would feel like i were thus speaking the insults. Damn me and my insistence on the power of words. The change should, of course, come from within the deaf community, shouldn’t be imposed from outside. But won’t this operate like spoken languages do? People point out that things are offensive and suggest alternatives and many people adopt the alternatives and some people don’t and life goes on? Or am i just being too sensible here?

Comments

[zzrg.livejournal.com]

I would have to argue that something being "incompatible with Christian teaching" and not precluding membership in the clergy is not a logical fallacy. The incompatiblity simply does not rise to something that would interfere with clerical duties and is not something that is explicitly prohibited by the "constitution".

[samfeasor.livejournal.com]

I'm mildly troubled every time that a religious institution's problems are decided in front of a "secular" jury, but I consider the separation between church and state to be a fundamental right that we just sort of ignore becuase the country tends to be religious.

That being said, the jury's reasoning wasn't altogether bad. The thing about a jury is that they have to make gut decisions and then bend them to fit the law, because otherwise there may be an appeal or, even worse, the judge will overturn them right then and there.

We just read cases about pleading the 5th in my Criminal Procedure class. About whether or not the right to not self-incriminate is fundamental or should be protected. In California, the Prosecutor used to be allowed to comment to the jury that the defendant wasn't getting on the stand. The protection against self-incrimination applies not only to getting on the stand and taking the fifth, but also the right not to get onto the stand. Your own testimony can't be compelled.

The thing is that you may have something to hide, but it may not even be about the case. In most cases like that, I think there are plenty of facts for the jury to deliberate over. Defendants not going onto th stand is fairly commonplace now... and while it may prejudice the jury, I don't think it always does.

I recall an argument when the whole "Pledge of Allegience" first came up that the God mentioned was a generic "god" term, therefore only excluding atheists (which is apparently better). I don't believe that in the slightest, but I remember it. I never said the Pledge while in high school, and I got in trouble from substitutes on occasion. But no one pressed the matter (besides the kids who wanted to tease me for it). I was an atheist at the time, so I refused to say anything with God in it, no matter which god it was.

I think the argument about blaspheming is interesting, but the plain fact of the matter is that there shouldn't be religious text in anything produced by or for the state, because government and religion (any religion) shouldn't be entwined. But that's my opinion. :)

Anyone who has said “Problematic as Kerry is, I think he’s better than Bush” retains their rights to complain about Kerry during his term.

Woohoo!

[hedy.livejournal.com]

*Sign language=Other less thretening ethnic stereotypes are also used, will they be changed too? Is there space for reappropriation?

*On the anyassholebutbushmovement-I think that if you think that Kerry is better than bush despite being problematic, you lose right to complain. But I know that if Bush wins Democrats will blame it on screwy 3rd partiers like me.