On Religious Freedom

This is one of the best, most concise explanations of the importance of religious freedom I’ve ever read.

[I]nter- and intra-religious battles aren’t really fought over doctrine, but over freedom.

We Americans look at the civil war fought between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and cluck our tongues at these violent fanatics, forgetting that the freedom of religion we take for granted is not a right enjoyed by most people in this world. Where there is no reliable protection of the freedom of religion its opposite holds sway — the establishment of one official legal religion. Yes, the Sunnis and the Shiites disagree over matters of doctrine, but that’s not why they’re fighting. They’re fighting because they are not protected by something like the First Amendment and without such protections — without the guarantee of free exercise made possible by the prohibition of legal establishment — they lack the freedom and space in which they might peaceably agree to disagree. Someone is going to establish a legally enforced religious hegemony and they’re fighting to determine who will get to do it. They’re fighting for hegemony because, absent the guarantee of the right of free exercise even for minorities,  hegemony is the only way to ensure their own right to worship as they see fit.

You don’t have to be some kind of religious zealot to understand that. You don’t have to be religious at all.

I think some of the more anti-religious zealots forget this when they dismiss sectarian conflicts as wholly the result of dogmatic delusion. I appreciate that someone like, say, Christopher Hitchens doesn’t share the impulse that would lead someone to fight on behalf of Shia Islam. But that person is also, most importantly, fighting for the right not to be a Sunni. And I suspect that the right not to be a Sunni is something that Hitchens himself would readily fight to defend.

Ironically, the existence of sectarian violence is often raised as a rationale for the abolition of religion. If we could just get rid of religion, we could put an end to all that religious violence.

But that’s the opposite of the only solution that has ever worked. It is, in fact, just another variation on the root cause of all sectarian violence — the attempt to impose religious hegemony and to deprive others of the freedom to worship or not worship as they choose. The only way to put to rest the cycle of sectarian violence is to eliminate the threat of imposed religious practice. Prohibit the legal establishment of religion and guarantee religious freedom for all and no one will need to take up arms to defend their freedom not to be something else. Doctrinal disputes will persist, but they will remain only that — arguments and differences of opinion.

- Fred Clark (Slacktivist), embedded in one of his usual deconstructions of the World’s Worst Books.

Quote of the Day

To understand elephant experience, it is necessary to continue unraveling elephant psychological mysteries—to understand individual differences in elephants in the same way we try with humans. Something that is now scientifically possible.

C.G. Jung once wrote that humans remain a mystery to themselves because they are unique, lacking someone or something against which comparisons can be made. This argument can no longer be made. The practice of using animals as human surrogates for probing into the human mind and human behavior implicitly acknowledges cross-species similarities, but somehow, though sharing the attributes that privilege humans, animals have been denied psyche and rights.

Today, the seemingly impermeable species barrier has eroded, similarities outweigh differences, and a theoretical and perceptual fusion has taken place. Human psychology and animal behavior are brought together in the creation of a trans-species science, a new scientific paradigm, the beginnings of which were described by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. Investigations into the natural world no longer revolve around the question “How are humans different?” Instead, they cause us to wonder in awe at our relatedness. How we as humans think, feel, and behave is reflected not just in our mirrors, but in the faces of elephants.

- G.A. Bradshaw, Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us about Humanity, 16

Torture: how to move forward

I have long thought that a truth commission such as the post-apartheid Truth & Reconciliation Commission in South Africa may be the only way to move forward, loath as I am to see the boastfully guilty pardoned.

How Should Obama Deal With Bush Era Torture? puts it succinctly, along with photographic and documentary evidence from torture regimes of the past: the Khmer Rouge, the Inquisition, the Gestapo.

Torture will remain an ugly stain on the U.S. until it is dealt with openly and transparently. The truth is, to me, more important than seeing punishment meted out on the offenders.

Quotes of the day: MLK

As I write, at the end of the first long season of Revolution, the Negro is not unmindful of or indifferent to the progress that has already been made. He notes with approval the radical change in the administration’s approach to civil rights, and the small but visible gains being made on various fronts across the country. If he is still saying “Not enough”, it is because he does not feel that he should be expected to be grateful for the halting and inadequate attempts of his society to catch up with the basic rights he ought to have inherited automatically, centuries ago, by virtue of his membership in the human family and his American birthright.
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait, from Chapter 2: “The Sword that Heals”

Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

- “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?”

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate(…)

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

-  “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

“All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

- Why We Can’t Wait

Link for today: Haiti

Haiti | To Hell With Altruistic Capitalism – Kester Brewin on the deeper, systemic issues that allow the horror of what’s happened in Haiti, as well as some musings on a critique of capitalism in view of Jesus’ teachings.

And it is particularly pertinent in the aftermath of the horror of the earthquake in Haiti. We see the politicians on both sides of the atlantic with their bleeding-heart messages about the disaster…. when in reality the West has f*cked Haiti over time and time again – preventing proper development, forcing the poor into cities and sweatshops to create cheap clothing for the US, suffering coups supported by the CIA… and now told that they deserved this earthquake because they sold their souls to the devil when they bought themselves out of slavery from France.

Please, please give generously to help Haiti get back on its feet. But in a week or so when the story has gone from our screens, let’s not forget them, and let’s try to get the systemic issues sorted out. They need debt forgiven. They need minimum wage agreements. They need symmetric fair trade agreements. They need to be given a fair chance, especially by the US.

As I say in the post on what looks like being a great conference, Oscar Wilde had it right when he said that the worst slave owners were the ones who were kind to their slaves. Why? Because they prolonged the horrors of an abusive system. And yes, that, on the grand scale, is what altruistic capitalism looks like.

If you want to help in the short term, here’s some good advice for choosing how to maximize the impact of your dollars by choosing the best NGO. (We went with Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières.)

The Proposition 8 Trial

The court challenge to California’s state referendum disallowing same-sex marriage began Monday. I’ve been wanting to write about it and to share links, but my perfectionism has fueled my procrastination. There’s a lot of information, and I want to distill the most relevant, most salient, most persuasive, most informative data for those who cannot absorb, or are not interested in absorbing, as much information as I have.

Let’s do it this way: if you only click one link, watch Rachel Maddow reporting on the trial. She captures the background details that make this case historically significant, and interviews the lawyers working to overturn Proposition 8.

This New Yorker article is my next recommendation. It’s somewhat long, but gives a fairly comprehensive view of the context in which Perry v. Schwarzenegger is coming about, the strategies involved in building the case & choosing the plaintiffs, what the various parties will need to demonstrate in order to win, and the possible end game of a Supreme Court decision, given the assumption that the loser of the trial will appeal to higher courts.

Other noteworthy things about the trial:

  • The two main attorneys for the plaintiff (those seeking to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage) are Ted Olson and David Boies, two top lawyers known for being “conservative” and “liberal” respectively. They most famously opposed each other in 2000′s Bush v. Gore. Olson was Solicitor General under G.W. Bush. If you’re curious as to how a renowned “conservative” attorney comes to be supporting gay rights, check out his article (the current cover of Newsweek), The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Quote:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike.

  • As to the trial itself, here is Ted Olson’s opening statement. It’s worth reading as to the scope of where the plaintiff’s arguments are headed.
  • One of the earlier witnesses was Professor Nancy Cott, Trumball Professor of American History at Harvard, author of 8 books including Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. As an expert witness on the history of marriage in the U.S., her perspective was very interesting in demonstrating the evolution of “the institution of marriage”. A sample, from the liveblogging at Prop 8 Trial Tracker:

[In the early 20th century] Marriage fell into the common law view of “coverture” which was the French that meant she was covered by her husband’s life. She lost her individuality, hence becoming Mrs. John Doe. This was the marital bargain to which both spouses consented.

The point is that this was a mutually agreed upon separation of labor. Men were deemed to be providers; women, the weaker sex, were deemed to need protection. Hence there was a division of labor. All socially conventional according to the times.

(…)

By the 1970s, with the women’s rights revolution, the Supreme Court stepped in and the states had to stay out of assigning spousal roles according to gender. Now, both spouses are required to support one another, but no longer by specific gender assignment. In other words, the law is now gender neutral.

The more that this has become gender neutral and the more society has evolved, the more same-sex marriage makes sense. Now, the coverture doctrine is dead. The state no longer assigns gender roles in marriage. Couples may choose to take on those roles, but its not up to the state any more.

That’s all for now. I’ll try to do better at excerpting news, quotes and links as I come across them, rather than holding off for an all-in-one that no one will care to read.

This is important. This is big. I feel like I’m watching the moral arc of history swinging toward justice, in the words of MLK. This has the potential to be a groundbreaking case. This could be Brown v. Board of Education; this could be Loving v. Virginia.

May justice prevail.

Torture: what about your son? your brother?

Not the only – not even the primary – reason that I oppose torture in all cases is the potential for torturing the innocent. Strike that – not the potential, but the inevitability of torturing the innocent.

The U.S. has already done this. I view it as imperative to continue to speak out, to make the argument as often as necessary until the battle for “hearts and minds” is won.

Here’s an interesting angle on the “torture of the innocents” scenario. A commenter on Andrew Sullivan writes of a very compelling, real concern for [her] brother:

My little brother is currently stationed in Iraq with the US Army. (This is true)
(…)My little brother was stationed at Ft Hood, where a terrorist attack by a soldier has already occurred (true)
While at Ft Hood, mostly because he was bored, my little brother attends classes on the Koran. (true)

Now the scenario:

One of the soldiers in my little brother’s unit, lets call him Glenn, is actually working for the enemy and attacks and kills some fellow soldiers. Glenn is caught and there are concerns he knows of more attacks. They bring in a CIA interrogation unit that is known to torture suspected terrorists. During torture, to tell the interrogators what they want to hear, Glenn informs on my little brother, who is innocent.

My little brother calls home scared – he is confined to base and has been ordered to report to the interrogation unit in 2 hours and he knows he will be tortured.

What do I tell him?

Then I read another interesting post on the topic by Eric at Obsidian Wings, regarding the fact that the father of the attempted underpants bomber, Abdulmutallab, reported him to the U.S. government. That’s a very brave, honorable thing to do, turning in one’s own son. Would he have done the same if he thought that there was a great likelihood that his son would be mistreated in U.S. custody?

The U.S. is trying to garner cooperation, both domestically and abroad, from Muslims and other innocent bystanders in connection with reporting criminal jihadists in their midst.  Intelligence and law enforcement are the most effective means of countererrorism, and in connection therewith, cooperation from the underlying population is invaluable.

However, in order to maximize on that cooperation, the United States must maintain the moral high ground, and stick to its principles.  It must warrant sympathy, and command respect if it wants to convince citizens to turn-in would be criminals in their midst – an uncomfortable deed under any circumstances.  But a United States that tortures, abandons due process, profiles Muslims indiscriminately and pursues a wildly belligerent foreign policy will have the opposite effect.

In Memoriam

George Tiller (2009), Barnett Slepian (1998), Robert Sanderson (security) (1998), Shannon Lowney (staff) (1994), Leanne Nichols (staff) (1994), John Britton (1994), James Barrett (escort) (1994), David Gunn (1993), George Patterson (1993).

All victims of terrorism. I’m shocked and angry.

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:”If your enemy is hungry, feed him;if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

-Romans 12.19-21

Torture: the skinny

Aric Clark at Two Friars and a Fool has provided a pretty comprehensive summary of the torture news. Reposting, in its entirety, A Deluge of Torture:

It has been a positive deluge of news about torture lately. In case you’ve been living under a rock, I have collected some salient points for you to consider.

Firstly, the United States government has tortured people. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross it was systematic and widespread.

The use of torture was supposedly justified by legal opinions issued by the Justice Department in 2003.

But the legal opinions were both wrong, and too late. Because according to the Senate Armed Services Committee torture was being planned and implemented in early 2002.

Which means that the memos weren’t a carefully considered response to an early inquiry from eager intelligence officials, but an attempt to silence dissent from within the CIA when interrogators questioned the legality (and morality) of torture.

Torture had always been the plan. In fact, the Bush administration, starting from the very top, was preparing to use torture from just a few months after 9/11/2001, and were urging its implementation to attempt to find an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

Of course the link never materialized and the early CIA uses of torture bled into the military and were widely practiced in Iraq and Afghanistan which means that Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush lied and the Abu Ghraib incident was not just a few bad apples.

Can there be any doubt that prosecutions must follow? Let’s hope the senate wises up and follows Patrick Leahy’s plan.

Also, there’s a useful timeline over at Daily Kos: What We Know So Far: A Torture Timeline, starting from August 2001.

Link for today

  • Just Asking – a must-read 2007 musing by David Foster Wallace – a thought experiment on “what is the price of freedom”. It seems particularly prescient given the recent revelations of the torture policy. Quote:

What if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price?