–Sebastian
I think I have a better handle on what bothers me about Cornyn’s comments and similar ‘explanations’ of suicide bombing against Israel. In both cases, the speaker pretends to be engaging in an intellectual analysis of a problem. But the explanation is framed to both blame the victim (often by a pretending that a non-homogenous class like ‘Israelis’ or ‘Judges’ is really homogenous) and to partially excuse the perpetrator (hemming and hawing about something being non-laudable but of course somewhat understandable given the difficult and emotionally trying conditions). In both cases, the speaker attempts to transform an entirely unjustifiable killing into something which supports their only tangentially related agenda.
The occupation of the West Bank does not offer a good explanation for blowing up oneself and a number of coffee drinkers in a town square. Allegedly activist actions by some judge somewhere does not explain in any useful or moral way frustration against judges that might lead to killing them. Using the deaths of these people to demonize a class of people that are somewhat similar to them is very ugly and dishonest. It isn’t explaining a problem. It is using the dressing of explaining a problem to demonize a class of people by blaming the victim and partially excusing the perpetrator.
The occupation of the West Bank does not offer a good explanation for blowing up oneself and a number of coffee drinkers in a town square.
Yes, it does!!!
Palestinian terrorism is the direct consequence of Israeli policies. Tit for Tat. Israelis steal land, Palestinians get even by killing as many Israelis as possible any way they can!!!
sebastian, i’d be happier if you would cite an example of an actual explanation offered by someone real rather than putting up the straw man who would just say “occupation of the West Bank” and leave it at that. i’m happy to admit the possibility of what you say. i’d just like to see an example of it. this whole thing started with your claim that an “unhealthy percentage” of the left did such a thing. we can start with one example and then proceed to your showing the percentage that propose such explanations.
but in any event, you’re really on a dual use of “understandable.” a morally culpable act can be “understandable” in the sense of being plausible based on what we know about human psychology without it being “understandable” in the sense of being forgiveable.
DonQ: Palestinian terrorism is the direct consequence of Israeli policies. Tit for Tat. Israelis steal land, Palestinians get even by killing as many Israelis as possible any way they can!!!
Hush up, Don, you’re not helping.
I was going to say, Sebastian, that it’s equally true in the other direction: “Palestinians” are demonized to justify the monstrous things Israelis do to them.
But this is a good point in general, and an excellent post.
Reuters – Iraqi Suspect Says U.S. Troops Took Mother Hostage
When some Iraqi blows himself up in a car in the US killing a couple of dozen civilians, Seb will probably condemn the barbarians for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, I on the other hand, will ask what took so long.
There is another problem with Sebastian’s analogy, namely the factual truth of the two statements. While certainly not justified, suicide bombings in Tel Aviv are motivated by the occupation of the West Bank. (Yes, there are a goodly number of extremists who want to push Israel into the sea; I suspect that they would have a lot fewer recruits in the face of a two state solution.) None of the recent killings of judges were, in fact, motivated by a dislike of activist judges imposing ideological biases. In two cases, you had criminal suspects shooting the judge presiding over their trial, and in the case of Joan Lefkow’s family, a disgruntled individual whom she had ruled against in a malpractice case killed her family.
Jon Cornyn just made **** up in order to justify his veiled threats.
Leaving aside the details, I don’t entirely agree with the general thrust of this post — I think there are, or at least should be, contexts in which one can discuss root causes of violence without being branded an apologist. Perhaps the floor of the Senate will never be one of those places, but if you take certain topics entirely off the table, you potentially limit your ability to solve the problem. After all, simply pointing fingers and saying “bad, bad terrorists!” is unlikely to make them stop, and relying only on law enforcement and military action is never going to be a 100% solution.
Sebastian, I’m with you.
DQ, the occupation of the West Bank may be, in part, the stated cause why some idiots turn themselves into monsters, and kill innocent civilians. But it does not “explain” such an act.
When some Iraqi blows himself up in a car in the US killing a couple of dozen civilians, Seb will probably condemn the barbarians for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, I on the other hand, will ask what took so long.
DQ, this is not a statement that a member of the loyal opposition would make. This is a statement that the other side would make.
There is no excuse for specifically and intentionally targeting innocent civilians.* You’ve cited a loosely reported anecdote in which U.S. soldiers may have behaved improperly in the pursuit of an enemy combatant. Assuming it’s true — a huge assumption — it is light years away from an intentional attack on civilians by a suicide bomber.
Me too. I think there is a bit too much ahum-hurumping over this post. Nicely done, Sebastian.
J. Michael Neal nails it.
There is no evidence that either of the attackers in the cases of violence against judges Cornyn referenced was motivated by aversion to judicial activism. Cornyn just made that sh*t up. Moreover, as far I’ve read, there were no complaints that either of the judges targeted had been “judicial activists” in the context Cornyn is talking about either, so again, he just made that sh*t up.
Why that fool was not booed or laughed off the floor suggests our legislature is comprised of bullies and jellyfish. We so totally deserve better.
My lord, sorry to be blunt, but what a bunch of intellectual masturbation.
J Michael Neal indeed nails it. Sebastian is taking Cronyn’s made up shit, polishing it up and then using it to justify his own biases.
If the Palestinians aren’t terrorizing Israel because of their occupation of the west bank, then what the heck are they doing it for? I mean, it’s not like there isn’t a long history of “get the hell out of the west bank” and “we want our own country, dammit”. Granted, this doesn’t “justify” the killings, but it sure as hell does *explain* it. Fighting, killing and martyring one’s self over occupied land has been happening as long as we’ve been human. Anyone who claims this doesn’t “explain” it is smoking some seriously whacked sh*t.
My lord, how the bar has been lowered.
Dead on.
You are in essence comparing the Cornyn tactic with Palestinian apologists who tut-tut terror bombings based on Israeli bad deeds, thereby sub silento justifying the unjustifiable. And its an apt analogy, except that as pointed out above, the recent judge killings had nothing to do with activism. And that makes Cornyn’s behavior worse — aping an assinine tactic in order to make a false conflation between violence and alleged activism.
By the way, Cornyn’s also making up the activism part. Why is so much right wing rhetoric based on pure fantasy about what is allegedly going on?
And ditto Jes’s point that Israelis do the same thing — tut-tut their bad deeds based on Palestinian bad deeds. Where would the Israelis be if the Palestianians had a leader with the wisdom and cleverness of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King (asssuming that Hamas would not have murdered him first)? Israeli bad behavior, rather than Palestinian terrorism, would have become the focus.
Oh, good…now Cronyn’s calling us all dumb:
He does go on to echo the most important critique of his statement, IMO, so that at least is good:
But then he dives right back into it again:
So for him the problem remains the judiciary, not the sociopaths who will from time to time target judges.
Edward: 49% of us deserve better. Unfortunately, we’re outnumbered by the 51% who don’t.
Cornyn issued another bleat today, complaining about how his words were taken out of context.
It’s been pointed out that none of the recent murders of judges and judges’ families have anything whatsoever to do with ‘anger at an activist judiciary.’
Cornyn’s warning therefore amounts to a pre-emptive justification for future, politically-motivated attacks on judges.
Seb’s post is interesting in a way he possibly didn’t intend: likening Cornyn’s warning to ME terrorism acknowledges that what the Radical Right and its enablers in the GOP are threatening is, in fact, terrorism.
So what we have is a US Senator issuing a pre-emptive justification for terrorist attacks on the judiciary, by ‘warning’ the judges that any such attacks would be all their own fault.
The mind boggles.
I think both stand_up_philosopher and, tangentially, von, have hit upon an important point: words like “understand” and “explain” have dual implications, one betokening an intellectual comprehension of events and the other a moral acceptance. I can, for example, “understand” why terrorists blow up cafés in the West Bank, or why Jeffrey Dahmer decided to make a meal of his friends and neighbors; I can “explain” that the Nazis believed in the purity of the herrenvolk so passionately that they euthanized “defectives”, or that Mao and the CCP refused to understand that their agrarian Communism simply wasn’t working in the Great Leap Forward and thus starved tens of millions of people to death for almost no reason; and I can do this without granting these people any kind of moral sanction for having done those actions, or giving them leave to do them again.
The specific problem I have vis a vis “explanation”, the Middle East and terrorism is that, too often, explanations of the causes of terrorism are looked upon as excuses for the terrorist acts. Sometimes that’s a fair complaint; most of the time it isn’t. I see no moral problem in noting that certain actions, e.g. settling in the disputed areas, will likely increase terrorist activity because I “understand” the “explanations” for terrorism. [In fact, I feel obligated to point that out.] This has nothing whatsoever to do with giving the terrorists moral license, or approving of their actions, or anything like that; it merely recognizes that certain stimuli lead to certain consequences irrespective of the moral paradigm in which those actions play out and that, if the goal is a peaceful ME, such actions should be avoided.
And DQ? Little piece of advice:
Yes, it does!!!
Palestinian terrorism is the direct consequence of Israeli policies. Tit for Tat. Israelis steal land, Palestinians get even by killing as many Israelis as possible any way they can!!!
If you find yourself needing to use three exclamation points to convey the depth of your emotion, you should probably reconsider posting.
Cornyn, not Cronyn, sorry about the lazy typing
Cornyn’s warning therefore amounts to a pre-emptive justification for future, politically-motivated attacks on judges.
It’s all part of the ground work for the upcoming midterms. They’ve passed as many anti-gay laws as they can without making even the most hardlined conservatives realize they’re discrimination based, so they need a new scapegoat for their ad campaigns. Judges are it.
Judges were the ad targets long before gay people (Think Roe v. Wade and the rise of the Christian Right). We aren’t THAT special. 🙂
Judges were the ad targets long before gay people
Yeah, but I don’t recall it being quite so concentrated an effort before…perhaps I wasn’t paying enough attention.
We aren’t THAT special. 🙂
Yeah, but they sure know how to makes us feel like we are.
Your NOT that special….
The institution of marriage is THAT important..
That’s what this is all about – that’s why the outcry and massive legislative push came after Goodridge & not after Lawrence.
Its about marriage! (not gays)
Sebastian, I share your disdain for those who make excuses for violence but I have to agree (I think) with J. Michael Neal and others that the two cases you cite are very different.
kenB: … there are, or at least should be, contexts in which one can discuss root causes of violence without being branded an apologist.
A recent This American Life episode, “Know Your Enemy,” featured a reading of a conversation between Israel’s defense minister and a suicide bomber who decided at the last minute not to blow herself up. It’s from a report in Ha’aretz.
In the story, the young woman’s boyfriend was killed by an Israeli soldier. She was depressed, and when she finally blurted out that she wanted to be a suicide bomber, she was swiftly swept up and days later was wearing explosives.
There’s essentially an assembly line approach by the bomb-makers — the story is very revealing about the process.
they need a new scapegoat for their ad campaigns. Judges are it.
What the Republican Party needs now is a good 5¢ gay judge.
I’m still only seeing “nudge nudge wink wink” here, not a distinction between “explaining” and “explaining away”, if you see one – otherwise one is stuck with
“why did x do something I dislike?”
“they’re evil”
“yup”
as a conversation.
“In both cases, the speaker pretends to be engaging in an intellectual analysis of a problem.”
This begs the question.
What about the Iraq-context situation?
Let’s see:
SH, as usual, treads on dangerous ground by analogizing a political speech about the threat of violence to actual violence in Israel. While the point he makes is fair and on point, even the oh-so-reasonable posters here get twitchy on the keyboard whenever Israel is mentioned.
for example, it could be argued (NO, I’M NOT TAKING THIS POSITION) that occupied peoples may legitimately attack the civilian populace of occupiers. Israel is a democratic country, so the civilian voters are, it can be argued, morally responsible for the actions of their government. Since the Palestinians are voiceless, violence against the entire political system, including the electorate, is acceptable.
now, the reason i get into this is to respond to Fitz’s pretty nauseating psuedo-justification of violence in prior threads, already starting to reappear here.
unlike in israel, most everyone in this country has the franchise, and those who don’t have it are denied it for good reason (minors, felons).
there is, therefore, NO parallel to the defenders of terrorism in Israel. Don’t like the federal judges? Get enough congresspersons elected to impeach. Don’t like the state judges? Vote them out. Fantasize about violence? Expect an unpleasant visit from the FBI.
A second point:
Cornyn, as a number of commenters have already pointed out, p*ssed all over his own quasi-apology. The system for naming federal judges comes from the constitution; it’s pretty shocking for him to claim that the system is broken.
He got too much heat for “understanding” future violence against federal judges, so he shifted back to familiar ground: blame the democrats.
It looks to me like the famous Republican party discipline is collapsing. This should be fun to watch.
One can as well postulate that people are engaging in violence against judges because of 30 years of ‘government is the problem’ bleating. All those who have engaged in such are therefore culpable.
No, I don’t believe this, although I think it much more likely than the notion that people are shooting judges because they’re ‘legislating’ from the bench.
Mr. Holsclaw–
I’m in general agreement with your point here.
But, like some previous posters, I think you could express it better.
From your title, it sounds like you want to *distinguish* explaining from justifying. (The first would be like the neutral sense of “understand” brought up by s.u.phil.; the second would be like the approving, forgiving sense).
If you do want to make a distinction like that (e.g. we can explain but not justify Palestinian violence) then I think it is a mistake in your final paragraph to continue using the word “explain” as you do.
Esp. this part: “It isn’t explaining a problem.”
Isn’t your point rather that, even in those cases where the person drawing the connection *is* explaining a problem, they need to make sure not to do the further thing of justifying the behavior?
(Set aside the fact that Cornyn’s claim just doesn’t even *explain* anything, since the actual deaths had no connection to the judges’ manifesting the kind of behavior Cornyn complains about. So he is justifying w/out explaining, probably the worst of the four combos. But in the Palestinian case, it does not seem outrageous to cite the occupation as a partial *explanation*, while denying that it justifies. And then you’d want to say, I think, “It may be explaining the problem, but what is offensive about some people who offer this explanation is that they are also justifying it, and demonizing the victim”.)
“Seb’s post is interesting in a way he possibly didn’t intend: likening Cornyn’s warning to ME terrorism acknowledges that what the Radical Right and its enablers in the GOP are threatening is, in fact, terrorism.”
That is exactly what I intended. I drew the parallel because I don’t like it, and the two cases are similar in rhetoric if not in actual outcome (thusfar). That is the whole point of the post.
I think Anarch is clearly right about the potential ambiguity of the words “explain,” and “understand.” But I also think it fairly obvious that Sebastian meant them in the sense of “justify.”
Whatever the defects of Sebastian’s analogy, his point is solid. It is very easy to use “I understand the reasons for X’s act” as a cover for “I do not really condemn X’s act,” and that, as I understand it, is what he suggests is going on.
Bernard, can one tell the difference? How does one answer a question about a politicized act without demonizing the bad guy or explaining away the bad deed?
Since hilzoy is pushing poetry month, I should note that the title of the post reminds me of a Wallace Stevens line (from “The Idea of Order at Key West”):
“Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.”
Hear Stevens read the poem here (make sure that “loops” is not on).
Fitz
I think you’re obsessed.
Even I don’t think that much about same-sex marriage.
(And I’m willing to bet five years after it’s national law, neither will anyone else).
Ed, Im an Activist! What can I say!
(And I’m willing to bet five years after it’s national law, neither will anyone else).
Your really banking on the Judiciary – aren’t you?
Some people disagree. (just yesterday! & vehemently!)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=645087
Do you know what a huge number 70% is.
If you follow politics, you should know that’s the kind of number politicians and even judges run and hide from.
Someone bit off wayyyy more than they can chew
Fitz,
First of all…thanks for using a link (we’ll sacrifice a lamb or something and now start praying for you to be blessed with the skills one day to translate them into hmtl, but for now [and sincerly] this is good)
Second of all, we’re not there yet, I know, but it will come. Historically speaking, it almost has to.
I’m sure you’re sincere in feeling that gay marriage poses a threat to straight marriage, but I cannot see it, even remotely. To me, votes like the one in Kansas are about comfort levels with change.
You’ll forgive me for feeling that this is not very brave of them.
If, on the other hand, as you suggest, this actually represents anti-gay sentiment, then the 70% people of Kansas who voted for this ban are ignorant and their governmental leaders should work to educate them, rather than exploit that ignorance for their own political gain, which, by the way, is really what this is all about, whether you can see that or not.
That is a false analogy. Terrorism is morally repugnant under any circumstances, but the fact remains that Palestinians are a genuinely oppressed people. Their grievances are for real. Those to whom Cornyn presumably refers, on the other hand, are not the least bit oppressed. Their grievances are thoroughly bogus, whipped up up and exploited by the likes of Cornyn and like-minded reactionary politicians. Palestinians are surely not blowing up buses because Israeli liberals are ordering them to respect the rights of gay people. If an American ever kills a judge for being “activist”, however, I would expect that to be prominent among his reasons.
Ah, Kansas. Has (had?) a sodomy law with a 6 month jail term. Yes, they’re really the pulse of the nation, Fitz. And it’s clearly not about gays there. That’s why they have all of those laws against divorce, yes?
I agree with the need for a distinction between explaining and justifying, but apparently so does everyone else. I also agree that the conflation of explanation with justification goes on at least as much on the Israeli side as on the Palestinian side. When people explain Israeli atrocities against Palestinians in terms of what Arabs have done to Israelis, that’s a partial explanation, but I get the distinct impression it’s often also intended as a justification.
I also agree with those who say there’s not a close analogy between what Cornyn said and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One really can explain (not justify) the bad behavior of each side in the I/P conflict by pointing to the bad behavior of the other side–nothing like that applies in the case of people shooting judges.
So far I have contributed nothing original to this thread, so to justify my post I’ll mention that in my reading of people on the far left I occasionally do find someone who actually does defend suicide bombing. Ted Honderich (an English philosopher, apparently well-known) has done so. And I think there’s a Canadian philosopher who has done so, but I’d want to hunt down the reference before naming him. (I’m sure about Honderich.) Once or twice I’ve seen people defend suicide bombing in questions they ask Chomsky at the ZNET site, but he slaps them down hard.
I think Anarch is clearly right about the potential ambiguity of the words “explain,” and “understand.” But I also think it fairly obvious that Sebastian meant them in the sense of “justify.”
Possibly, but sentences like “It isn’t explaining a problem.” blur the line sufficiently to warrant a more careful exposition. You’re correct, though, that I was addressing a slightly more general point than merely that of the original post.
Great. Just starting to read this thread I see it begins with Don “Americans should die” Quijote and his fantastic moral calculus. Can’t we have a nice discussion for at least 10 or so posts before unbalancing it?
Ed: I like “Cronyn.” Sounds short for Cro Magnon, which is appropriate.
Can we have a reality show with DQ and Fitz locked in a room? It would be strangely entertaining.
Careful, carpeicthus, your fangs are showing.
Donny,
I don’t think you’re taking the “terrorism is morally repugnant under any circumstances” portion of your statement seriously enough. It does not matter whether the grievances that ostensibly lead to terrorist violence are legitimate or bogus – it remains morally repugnant, as you said, under any circumstances. So why bring it up?
Can we have a reality show with DQ and Fitz locked in a room? It would be strangely entertaining.
Throw in Andrew Sullivan and you’ve got a promising Revival of “No Exit” there.
All I’ve got to say about this whole thing is there’s something very, very wrong when I start looking like a moderate in comparison with other posters. Very. very. wrong.
Mr. Slartibartfastianpause isn’t in some platonic sense a moderate?
Jonas Cord, why bring up the I/P conflict at all? Sebastian did, apparently in order to condemn one side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, when both sides try to justify their own atrocities by pointing to the atrocities of the other.
Cornyn’s statement would make some sense as an explanation (not a justification) if there were judges abusing their power and oppressing and killing innocent people and if in response some people started shooting judges and their families and court reporters and random people in the courtroom. And then you’d also have a close analogy to the I/P conflict and a reason to refer to it in connection to Cornyn.
I didn’t think Sebastian’s post was a good one for this reason–it could have been good if it had been fair, but it wasn’t.
I personally think it would be helpful if, for once, ascriptions of vile intent and varying degrees of moral squalidness, definitions of terrorism vs. collateral damage and the whole unfruitful moralistic brouhaha in general would be left out discussions regarding the Israeli/Palestininan conflict (not to speak of comparing actors on one side to nutcases at home, just because you see a rhetorical opening) – because it doesn’t lead us anywhere.
Both sides have ample blood on their hands, the dead are dead no matter who or what killed them: 1,042 Israelis and 3,579 have died since the beginning of the second intifada (link) and both sides are guilty in part of all sorts of atrocities. Many on either side wish the others would just die or go far, far away. Treat them both with an amoral attitude as self-interested, nefarious players in a war neither side can win, and there might be a chance for a forced peace.
The specific problem I have vis a vis “explanation”, the Middle East and terrorism is that, too often, explanations of the causes of terrorism are looked upon as excuses for the terrorist acts.
I don’t know if “excuses” is the right term for this. When I, for example, offer explanations of this nature regarding insurgent attacks in Iraq, or terrorist attacks in Israel, and those explanations draw a cause and effect relationship between official government policies and said attacks, then I am making an implicit statement: your policies/actions share a portion of the blame for instigating this outcome.
I think this is a reasonable statement to make in the case of the I/P conflict: clearly both sides engage in tactics that, if not designed to, have the clearly foreseeable consequence of exacerbating the situation and provoking a lethal response from the other side. Less clear-cut, but also reasonable, is the suggestion that the US bears a measure of responsibility for insurgent attacks and terrorist bombings in Iraq: these people would not be there doing this if we had not invaded, or had done so more competently. For those of us who thought invading Iraq was a really bad idea, this is a valid point. It doesn’t excuse the actions of the other guy, but it does point out that if you decide to address racial tensions by walking into Harlem and start shouting “nigger!” at people, you’re probably going to get your ass kicked, and both you /and/ the person who did it share responsibility for your hospital stay.
Which raises the question: is this what Cornyn is trying to say about judges applying the law to difficult cases before them?
It does not matter whether the grievances that ostensibly lead to terrorist violence are legitimate or bogus – it remains morally repugnant, as you said, under any circumstances. So why bring it up?
I bring it up because I don’t think Cornyn deserves the opportunity to slip off the hook on the basis of a false moral equivalency. Terrorism notwithstanding, it is reasonable to say that Palestinians are getting a raw deal from Israel. There is a real problem there that needs to be fixed. People in this country are not getting a raw deal from the courts in the way that the wingnuts would like us to believe. We are not oppressed by “activist judges”. To say that Palestinian terrorism might be reduced or eliminated by ending the occupation and improving the conditions of their daily lives is not the same as saying that fewer Americans would want to kill judges if said judges would just stop being so damned “activist”.
“We are not oppressed by “activist judges”.”
That I wouldn’t agree with. I would say the activities of activist judges should be dealt with through things like impeachment rather than lynching.
Fitz:
Here’s a useful link to basic html instructions. Is simple and you will be able to type like the rest of us.
novakant:
Treat them [Isreali/Palestinian] both with an amoral attitude as self-interested, nefarious players in a war neither side can win, and there might be a chance for a forced peace.
Amen, although with AIPAC calling many of the shots re US policy, we are long way from that in this country.
I would say the activities of activist judges should be dealt with through things like impeachment rather than lynching.
Assuming, of course, that the judges in question are really “activist”. The more I see the term used, the more I’m convinced that “activist judges” is usually just another way of saying “judges interpreting the law in ways I disagree with”.
Donald Johnson,
It was not the intention of my question to ask why the I/P confict was raised. Rather it was why Donny saw fit to unconditionally condemn terrorism on the one hand, and on the other insist that when we are “explaining” and not “justifying,” that legitimacy of a cause is a factor as to whether terrorism will occur. I have yet to see this notion adequately defended.
The “cause and effect” explanation of terrorism is so oversimplistic as to be useless from an honest, intellectual perspective in my opinion. So it does not matter to me whether the “causes” – Judges or Israel – are completely analagous, which I would agree they are not. They are analogous broadly speaking as calls to violence against the innocent, which I’m going to assume why everyone here is condemning terrorism.
For a simple reason as to why I dismiss the “cause and effect” explanation, it’s worth examining the victims of tragedies of oppression and violence, let’s say the Bantu. I think an honest evaluation of the situation these people find themselves is an order of magnitude worse than that of the Palestinians, which is not to belittle Palestinian suffering but rather to emphasis the scope of what has happened, currently and historically to these people. Yet, as far as I can tell, no terrorist actions have been made by the Bantu in retribution. Therefore, I believe it is only reasonable to imply that a theory of why terrorism happens is going to be very complex, and not a simple cause-and-effect formulation.
Donny,
You’re giving me a political argument when something more substantive is needed. As it is demonstrated by the nature of their acts, terrorists are not reasonable, therefore it is absurd to say that it matters whether the rationale behind the violence is reasonable or not. As Donald Johnson said as a hypothetical example:
What you guys aren’t taking into account is that there are nuts who actually believe that such things are taking place because of Judges. Whether it be on the right with Schiavo or abortions; on the left with the death penalty. Just because the justifications for hypothetical violence against judges don’t seem reasonable to me doesn’t mean it won’t happen, and doesn’t mean that’s it is somehow less important as when terrorism occurs for a reason I’m sympathetic to.
If “activist” means, to be fair to SH, “acting, according to many people, in excess of constitutional powers”, then it is true that on occasion both state and federal courts have been activist over the last 200 years.
It’s pretty clear to me, though, that the Executive and US Congress, not to mention a whole bunch of state legislatures, are doing a bang-up job of being activist too. The problem is that too many voters approve of that activism.
For example, looking at the text of the 5th and 14th amendment, it’s pretty hard to tell whether a state may deny a pregnant woman an abortion when her life is endangered by the pregnancy. But a legitimate argument can be made that such a denial violates her liberty interest in life. And the US Sup Ct has agreed with that argument, so abortion restriction laws must contain health-of-the-mother exceptions.
Now, in recent years, it appears that the Congress as well as a number of state legislatures have passed abortion laws that do not contain constitutionally adequate mother’s health exceptions. It has been argued that these exceptions are kept out so that the laws will fail and the religious right will continue to be outraged and make campaign contributions. It has been argued that many Republican legislators are terrified of abortion restriction laws being upheld, for fear of massively re-energizing the Democratic party. Whether or not the arguments are correct, it is undisputed that recent attempts to restrict abortion have, as far as I can tell, largely (entirely?) failed to pass constitutional muster.
Who, precisely, are the activists?
It has been argued that health-of-the-mother exceptions are so large as to swallow up almost any proposed rule.
My apologies for getting long-winded, but after walking around the block my central point has become more clear.
It does not matter to a terrorist whether Donny, Donald Johnson, or myself believe their cause to be legitimate. It need only be legitimate in their mind.
That being said, asserting the moral legitimacy of the motivation of terrorists can only serve one possible purposes that I can tell –
One believes that the terrorist has a legitimate greivance, and that this is not a subjective judgement but rather an objective reality – one that presumably is so real that it can provoke otherwise peaceful people into fits of senseless violence*.
And forgive me, it’s an excuse to assert the complete validity of ones own grievances when they happen to be in alignment with those of terrorists, i.e. “Of course this horrible thing happened, I’m right about them being wronged.”
* I can’t accept this when terrorism can happen for what most here, left and right, would accept to be absurd and illegitimate grievances – the Unabomber, for example.
Hi everyone (back from a nice long day at work). I like this post. I think that the distinction between explaining (trying to understand the causes of) something and excusing it is crucial. After 9/11, I found it understandable that this distinction got blurred, so that people who were genuinely trying to understand why something like that might have happened were lumped in with people who were trying to make excuses for terror, but I also thought it was disastrous: understanding why something happens is the only way to figure out what you can do to make it less likely to happen again, and the idea that there might be some such thing to do does not at all imply that it’s your fault. So here.
Also, like everyone else, I think that the fact that the Palestinians are motivated by real grievances against Israel while the killers of judges are not motivated by real grievances against activist judges is crucial.
But I also think that one thing that can make claims like the ones Sebastian is considering deeply suspect is context. For instance: in the case of Cornyn’s remarks, the following facts seem to me to be relevant: first, I do not think there has been a wave of activist judging recently. (Note: I do not think that when a judge rules on the basis of a reasonable theory of interpretation that I think is wrong, I should call that judge ‘activist’; nor do I think the term ‘activist’ should be applied in cases where a judge gets it wrong in what one might call a normal, ‘humans are fallible’ sort of way. So if I were Sebastian and Katherine were a judge, I wouldn’t call her an activist judge just because she interpreted the law as she thought it should be interpreted, or if she just got something wrong.)
Second, there has been a wave of conservative criticism, sometimes rising to the level of vitriol and venom, against the judiciary. Third, there have recently been calls for rebellion against the judiciary (see my post from 10 days or so ago.) Again, these have chiefly come from the right. Both of these things tend, in my view, to undercut respect for the judicial system. And while I think one should criticize the judiciary when it deserves criticism, I also think one should be especially careful about checking to make sure that one has ones facts right before criticizing it, and that one should never criticize it when it’s not deserved (e.g., to score partisan points), since respect for the rule of law is very, very important.
Against this particular backdrop, when a Republican senator gets up and says, Hey judges, your activism is making people lose respect for you, and maybe that’s why you all are getting killed, — then I think: what’s wrong with that is not just that it seems to excuse the violence, and that there is no such connection; it’s also that Cornyn is one of the very people who are undercutting respect for the judiciary, and he’s doing it some more in this very speech, even though he says it pains him to point out how judges are provoking people with their activism.
I don’t mean this to be a cheap partisan point. I would feel exactly the same way if, let’s suppose, an SDS member in the 60s had spent ages publicly railing against the police and their corrupt establishment ways, and then after some police officers had been killed or injured, said: gee, it really pains me to say this, but maybe it’s because the police are so corrupt and brutal; that sort of thing can provoke people.
Jonas: “That being said, asserting the moral legitimacy of the motivation of terrorists”
I suspect you’re doing something like question-begging with your use of the term “terrorist”. A “terrorist” act is by definition unacceptable. What about acts not considered terroristic by the actor?
Nevertheless, there needs to be some criteria to distinguish discussions of the motivations of terrorists in terms more complex than “they’re terrorists” from apologies for their actions.
hilzoy: “it seems to excuse the violence”
This is what I don’t understand. Say people have legitimate (perhaps according to a partisan view) grievances, a subset of them become angry, and a subset of those resort unacceptably to violence. Can I describe this situation in a non-exculpatory way?
Or if there is no legitimate grievance? If I say that when y mugged x, it was on a dark street and x was shouting “I just won the lottery!” and y just got fired and his kid needs a doctor, am I explaining away?
I do acknowledge the “explaining away” problem – “the woman who was raped was wearing a mini-skirt” rhetoric jumps to mind.
rilkefan: I think that interpretation depends on context. In this case, it’s very hard for me to see what Cornyn said as a genuine attempt at explanation, what with there being no connection between the supposed cause and the actual recent violence against judges.
So you read his “I was a judge, violence against judges is repugnant, both sides are poisoning the discourse about the judiciary, etc” as the deepest hypocricy?
“Can I describe this situation in a non-exculpatory way?”
Sure it is possible, it just doesn’t happen much. In the context of the Cornyn speech it sounds exculpatory becauses his focus is on the ‘legitimate’ complaints people might have with respect to the victim class of ‘judges’. The suicide bomber question typically comes up in response to a suicide bombing where the speaker then demonizes the class of people ‘Israeli’ that just got murdered.
“his focus”
Seems to me he has a legitimate concern about the way the judiciary works – I happen to think his view is extremely, partisanly wrong, but he gets to raise the subject.
There’s one paragraph phrased in extremely conditional terms –
“Finally, I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection”, “I wonder whether there may be some connection” – which is the focus of everyone’s concern. It’s one paragraph buried in a long, tedious speech. It doesn’t strike me as in any way consequential to Cornyn’s purpose in making the speech.
when Senators speak to an empty chamber, it’s for the purpose of creating a sound bite. GWB’s speechwriters have mastered the art of placing coded language in speechs that can be turned into soundbites which resonate strongly with his evangelical audience.
Cornyn knew exactly what he was doing — tossing red meat to his anti-elitist constituency. He got caught, “apologized” and did it again by referencing the broken nomination process.
The suicide bomber question typically comes up in response to a suicide bombing where the speaker then demonizes the class of people ‘Israeli’ that just got murdered.
Does it really “typically” come up that way? Is that a fact? I read Cornyn as making an oblique threat to jurists who don’t toe the rightist line. Of course, he disavows his own part in fueling the delusional thinking that grips these aggrieved citizens. I do not read critics of Israeli occupation policy as tacitly threatening Israel with further attacks if they don’t shape up. And they are certainly not actively fanning the flames of Palestinian intransigence. Why do you want to give the toxic Cornyn a pass like this?
Billmon is also willing to give Cornyn the benefit of the doubt.
rilkefan: I don’t know that I disagree with Billmon, exactly. I mean, I don’t know Cornyn, etc., but my sense on reading the speech was that he was talking about activist judges, and something impelled him to give it this little extra kick; not that he was delivering a coded message to his followers with the baseball bats. Likewise, I can imagine my hypothetical SDS member saying what he did just because he got swept up in the rhetoric. But I don’t really think that that would excuse it in either case. There are certain kinds of stupid that, according to me, you don’t get to be, especially when you’re a Senator.
See in this context the poem I just posted.
Rilkefan,
Most, if not all, acts of what we both (I assume) consider terrorism are not considered terroristic by the actor. So I don’t know where that gets us, other than distinguishing our (you and I) moral values versus that of the terrorists. I don’t think that whether the motivation is perceived by most people to be legitimate ameliorates this moral divide at all.
And I don’t think we get anywhere towards that understanding by assuming that having a legitimate grievance is the cause to the effect of terrorism.
I think you just described the situation quite nicely, assuming that you do not believe that the legitimacy of the grievance is a prerequisite for the violence.
“Why do you want to give the toxic Cornyn a pass like this?”
What I am doing is the exact opposite of giving Cornyn a pass. I am explictly comparing him to the kind of people who slyly excuse suicide bombing. From my philosophical context, that is about as bad as it gets without actually funding the suicide bombing apparatus or killing a judge yourself.
And I don’t think we get anywhere towards that understanding by assuming that having a legitimate grievance is the cause to the effect of terrorism.
Jonas, are you saying that some people are inherently inclined to acts of terror and will find any pretext for them? That, say, defusing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would have no net effect on the incidence of terrorism?
This is not my impression — certainly some few people are more inclined to such violence than most others, but I’d say they’re like piles of gunpowder that still need a match to ignite them.
Guys
You fail to see the anger over judicial activism on the right.
You have to go all the way back before Roe to the Griswald decision.
Did you know there was no violence against abortionists after Roe, No it was not until Casey that violence began to happen,
Do you understand the relevance of that.
A whole series of decisions on a number of levels (from pornography to religion)
We feel we are watching a small, powerful, unaccountable elite- slowly demoralize our country (literally & expressly de-moralize the law)
And were right! That’s exactly what their doing!
“Most, if not all, acts of what we both (I assume) consider terrorism are not considered terroristic by the actor.”
I don’t think that’s accurate. If you predefine terrorism as something like ‘an evil thing that people do’ then of course you’re right, because very few people believe they’re evil (and of course a lot of people seem to use this definition in political rhetoric. ie ‘journalistic terrorism’, ‘economic terrorism’, blah de blah. But we know they’re clownshoes). A more reasonable definition would be something like killing a bunch of noncombatants in order to terrify the population. And I expect that most terrorists would heartily agree that that is, in fact, exactly what they’re trying to do.
Its killing innocent civilians for political gain.
Fitz — when you reflect on the fact that the judges who pass these decisions are, by now, mostly appointed by Republicans, and most of them are not at all liberal, do you ever wonder whether you’re right to describe the pro-Griswold party as a ‘small minority’?
Hilzoy
Its not Republican or Democrat
Plenty of republicans are seduced into this thinking. It’s the Georgetown cocktail set.
An inside the Beltway/European – Ivy League “sophisticate” point of view – that thinks it always knows the direction of “progress”.
Well – you may believe that they should rule over the country by decree, but I don’t.
And the constitution doesn’t not give them the power to.
doesn’t give them the power to.
“Its killing innocent civilians for political gain.”
You need to insert an ‘intentionally’ in there. Otherwise there are a bunch of terrorists running around the capitol.
And the constitution doesn’t not give them the power to.
I couldn’t not disagree more.
kenb,
I think it’s completely unambigious that people do not need a good reason (i.e. a legitimate grievance) to commit acts of violence, including terrorism.
It’s my hunch that defusing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – let’s say peace talks ala Barak/Arafat/Clinton came to a mutually acceptable conclusion – would likely reduce violence but not eliminate it. Too many terrorist organizations would both be too hardline to accept the resolution ideologically, and as a practical matter would also find that there was little other than slaughtering that they were competent to do.
Sidereal,
Come to think of it, I agree completely, very well put. All I meant is that the terrorists clearly do not share the moral outlook that makes such actions, as many have said here, unacceptable under any circumstances.
“An inside the Beltway/European – Ivy League ‘sophisticate’ point of view”
I’m curious, Fitz. What percentage of the 59 million people that voted for Kerry do you think attended Ivy League schools and drink cocktails in their Manhattan condos?
I’m curious, Fitz. What percentage of the 59 million people that voted for Kerry do you think attended Ivy League schools and drink cocktails in their Manhattan condos?
If a 40 year spate of CONSERVATIVE judicial activism started (and it could) – people like that would notice (and quick)
Obviously – If you like the outcomes, you end up not careing about the means.
I think it’s completely unambigious that people do not need a good reason (i.e. a legitimate grievance) to commit acts of violence, including terrorism.
Sure. But in most cases they do in fact need a reason, and if the goal is to reduce incidents terror, it seems silly not to at least consider what motivates terrorists and what might be done to eliminate those motives.
Can we agree that Cornyn’s rhetoric is stupid and dangerous, which I think is Sebastian’s point, although I understand Sebastian states his positions as wheels within wheels and you have to get your timing down?
There is a lot of stupid, dangerous rhetoric abroad in the land by people who should know better. That it is only slightly more stupid and dangerous than stuff said on my side of the aisle gives me no comfort.
I see George W. Bush, the leader guy, was peering into a file cabinet the other day and declaring the Social Security Trust Fund a pile of worthless I.O.U.s. A little later I was cashing a check at my credit union and considered for a moment asking to enter the vault and touch my money. Since I know my money is in someone’s car loan or mortgage, I resisted because I’m not quite ready to start a run on the money system, but it occurs to me that it might be exciting. Same with the accounts at Schwab etc., you know, those little pulses of energy which pose as stock certificates.
Also, today in my very local neighborhood paper, for crying out loud, I read a letter to the editor from a jackel in Texas (spare me) repeating the blood libel that Democrats (yeah, me and the rest of the 49%) murdered Terry Schiavo.
So, there is only one short post that needs to be written about John Cornyn and Tom Delay’s views on the judiciary, George W. Bush’s smirkingly demagogic comments on government bonds, the Terry Schiavo blood libelers, Palestinian terrorists, and nutcake Israeli settlers stealing holy land ..
Shut the fuck up. Everyone feel better now?
“Obviously – If you like the outcomes, you end up not careing about the means.”
Not true at all. For example, I liked the result in Roper but I thought the means were completely inappropriate. . especially the nonsense about looking to foreign law to get the sense of US morality. Katherine, as another example, has been quite forward in her disappointment over Roe v Wade, even though I assume she likes the (legal) outcome.
The difference is that even if you think they’re wrong, it doesn’t necessitate that they’re illegitimate. And your criticisms are worthless unless they’re grounded in process. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state constitution as requiring equal access to marriage for gays. You may not like it, but if you think they’re wrong, you need to have at least as good an understanding of Massachusetts state law as they do, which seems unlikely.
I don’t believe Cornyn’s attempt to excuse his remarks of Monday. He and the rest of the radical reactionaries are the ones who have been trash talking judges. They have been the ones who whine about decisions that judges make. They are the ones who insult and tear down the judiciary. They are the one who finds reasons for folks to justify murder. They should hold themselves personally responsible for the next judge who is killed. If an important wing of a political party campaigns against the rule of law, should they be surprised when they manage to destroy the rule of law? No, no they should not, they should expect what happens and be held accountable for it.
The rule of law cannot work if politicians repeatedly attack the law and the judges who enforce it just for their own personal political purposes. They should feel shame. They must stop making excuses and change their behavior.
I have no confidence that they will, not until they get thrown out of office.
Posting rules, John Thullen.
Yes, but I thought it would be good to cut to the chase.
And now, I retract. Edit my post or delete.
Change those words to “Could everyone please be a little nicer and quit saying silly things?”
Well, we’ll see. At least the servers at everyone’s workplaces will feel better.
Sorry, Slart.
Its killing innocent civilians for political gain
Yeah, well, I don’t think that even the insertion of “intentionally” saves this one – unless you believe we firebombed Dresden to knock out 10 ball bearing factories, nuked Hiroshima to get that aircraft plant, carpetbombed Hanoi to knock out Hanoi Hannah, etc., etc….
Intentionally killing civilians for political gain is a central tenet of modern war as practiced by every nation on earth including us. 9/11 didn’t change that. Terrorism requires a more nuanced definition, which addresses its status as the preferred tactic of those who have no other possibly effective military response to a perceived enemy. The Palestinians blow up buses because if they stood up like soldiers and attacked the Israelis, they would be abjectly slaughtered and the intifada would end in a day. Ditto al Quaeda, versus the foes that they have chosen. This is not an excuse for the murders they commit, but any definition of terrorism that excludes or ignores this fact is simply a convenient and self-serving fiction. I don’t hate al Quaeda because they slaughter innocents. We do that, too. I hate them because they slaughter innocents in the service of a medeival, cruel, authoritarian and insanely repressive misreading of Islam that is the ideological equivalent of Komodo dragon saliva – filthy, infectious, and lethal.
Not sure what that has to do with the post at hand, but I’m sorry – I just can’t let such a smug pat answer go uncontested.
Just for context, the PATRIOT Act definition of terrorism (Sec. 802(a)(5))is as follows:
Which, of course, suffers from the same broad failings outlined above; what act of war, after all, is not intended to accomplish these goals? However, despite my own problems with other aspects of the PATRIOT Act, this language is serviceable as a criminal statute to prosecute terrorists – such statutes need not wrestle with the issues mentioned above, but must accurately describe general categories of specific behavior, which this language does.
st, I don’t think sidereal was being smug – a bit offhanded, perhaps. But I agree that the definition of “terrorism” is both important for understanding the world and a political bone of contention.
Fitz’s 8:31 was smug, standing alone as if it ended all arguments. That is the comment to which I was responding. Sidereal’s 8:43 correction, reacting (I believe) to this smugness, didn’t capture the true fallacy. I apologize to sidereal for the unclear reference.
Oops, st, you were clear enough. I haven’t been reading Fitz‘s comments for a while now and jumped to conclusions. Apologies to the injured parties.
We do that, too. I hate them because they slaughter innocents in the service of a medeival, cruel, authoritarian and insanely repressive misreading of Islam that is the ideological equivalent of Komodo dragon saliva – filthy, infectious, and lethal.
But what are we slaughtering people for?
what are we slaughtering people for
Well, in order of the examples I cited, the extirpation of Nazism, the end of Japanes Imperialism, and the defeat of Vietnamese communism. Two of those goals were worthy. None of those goals could have been accomplished without knowingly killing civilians. Spin that and paint me any way you like, DQ, but a world without slaughter of innocents is a world without war, and thus, not the world we do, or ever will, live in. Do I wish it was different? Lord, yes.
Sidereal (wrote)
“”but if you think they’re wrong, you need to have at least as good an understanding of Massachusetts state law as they do, which seems unlikely.””
How ridiculous – What does that mean exactly, that only Massachusetts lawyers have any right/ability to comment? Or is it only Mass. Constitutional experts ect. What level of expertise is required? You do understand that there ERA amendments, equal protection clause & rational basis requirements mirror those found in the U.S. constitution (if applicable) and similar provisions found in many state constitutions?
Are you (sidereal) an expert in U.S. Con-Law and if not – why are you qualified to comment on Roper? Is Katherine an expert, and if not – incapable of commenting on Roe v Wade?
Fitz,
by the way, note that it IS going to happen:
It will be the progressive folks in blue states like Connecticut who bravely lead the way, but the day will come when gay Americans are no longer treated like second-class citizens by their government. Kansas et al. will catch up eventually.
It’s the American way, an American tradition, if you will, to expand equality and rights. It’s also the fair thing to do.
Yes Ed, I read the article the other day in the NYT.
The argument for “inevitability” is no argument at all. Nothing is foreordained (unless you believe it’s the will of God or something) Just because you call a State progressive, doesn’t make everything its legislature does progress.
The type of “historical inevitability” that you are talking about has its roots in Marxist and Hegelian philosophy. Marx’s “dialectic materialism” is little more than a twisted rip off of Hegelian dialectic. However, both believed that humanity was “progressing” to some inevitable conclusion. For Hegel it was “freedom” and to Marx it was a workers paradise. The notion that there is a “progression” that can be seen in history is very Western, which makes the Left’s love affair with Marx even more amusing when you look at how much the Left tries to claim that they care about understanding other cultures. This is probably why Leftist academics were so spectacularly wrong about the collapse of the Soviet Union and why Left wing experts on the Middle East are also being proven incorrect over and over again. The Left don’t care about other societies all they care about is how they can use other societies to prove what they “know” to be true, which is the “progression” towards an “inevitable” socialist paradise.
PS – Hegel defined “freedom” as increased submission to the state. To some, relieving the burden of choice is “freedom.” Just look at Western Europe.
Fitz: I am an expert on philosophy, and I can find nothing in what Edward says that specifically points to a Hegelian or a Marxist version of historical necessity, as opposed to the much more common “I think this is bound to happen sooner or later”, which has been around a lot longer.
Your blanket statements about the Left are idiotic.
Just calling something “progressive” doesn’t make it progress.
57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
62-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.
Now either all those people are simple bigots or you have not bothered to take their arguments seriously. Maybe its not a question of gays but a question of marriage.
Just maybe they are all concerned about the institution of marriage and its overall health?
Something to consider, (many of those states banned civil unions as well – including many blue ones)
(I think you only want to hear one side of the debate!)
The type of “historical inevitability” that you are talking about has its roots in Marxist and Hegelian philosophy.
Not to speak for Edward, but that is bulls**t. If I read Edward right, he’s saying that there is an American tradition of not standing idly by while a group of people is mistreated and shut out for no reason other than ingrained prejudice. Eventually, the disconnect between our principles and our practice just gets too broad.
Nice headfake into the “all liberals are commies in diguise” nonsense though. Smoooooooth.
However, both believed that humanity was “progressing” to some inevitable conclusion. For Hegel it was “freedom” and to Marx it was a workers paradise. The notion that there is a “progression” that can be seen in history is very Western, which makes the Left’s love affair with Marx even more amusing when you look at how much the Left tries to claim that they care about understanding other cultures.
Wow, who would have guessed? Fitz as defender of other cultures (presumably only those who severely punish homosexuality need apply) But if Fitz thinks that the notion of progress is illusory, why is he bothering commenting here?
Do you have a point that relates to the issue Fitz?
My belief is not one in Marxism or Hegelism, but rather Americanism. The idea that all people are created equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness.
The “inevitability” I reference is in seeing parallels between other minorities in US history who’s lack of access to the benefits our government provided other people was eventually seen as unfair, unconstitutional, and unAmerican.
I’m sorry you have so little faith in our country. ;p
Fitz: It should go without saying that we can disagree with someone without either (a) thinking that that person is a bigot or (b) failing to take his or her arguments seriously. I disagree with Sebastian on all sorts of things, but I don’t think he’s a bigot, and I have tried to take his arguments seriously.
If I may offer an observation: if you want to show us the value of listening to others, not dismissing their arguments out of hand, and generally displaying an attitude of charity and generosity, you might reflect on whether you are displaying it in your own conduct.
Fitz, I know lying an igorance is your thing (and I refuse to follow very many posting rules toward someone who’s cluttered up this board with his salivations about hurting or killing those who disagree with him) but yes, there was violence right after Roe. Even in just my small city, the Planned Parenthood was firebombed.
This is probably why Leftist academics were so spectacularly wrong about the collapse of the Soviet Union and why Left wing experts on the Middle East are also being proven incorrect over and over again. The Left don’t care about other societies all they care about is how they can use other societies to prove what they “know” to be true, which is the “progression” towards an “inevitable” socialist paradise.
Because academics really haven’t done any critical work at all since the ’60s. Because there are absolutely no counter-narratives to the orthodox Marxism. There is no feminist critique of Marxism. No postcolonial critique. No Lyotard.
Maybe we should just dig up the corpses of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, reanimate them, and have them fight it out in a celebrity death match, since that is the level of critique we are dealing with here.
If you are going to create an academic straw man, at least try to make it believable. This caricature of the academic Marxist is a relic.
An expert in philosophy? What does that mean?
Would anybody who was that- ever call himself that.
Yes – blanket statements are often overly broad – but idiotic?
Just calling something “progressive” doesn’t make it progress.
57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
62-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.
Now either all those people are simple bigots or you have not bothered to take their arguments seriously. Maybe its not a question of gays but a question of marriage.
Just maybe they are all concerned about the institution of marriage and its overall health?
Something to consider, (many of those states banned civil unions as well – including many blue ones) (I think you only want to hear one side of the debate!)
Yes, Marxism and even the Judeo-Christian ethic (Moses lead his people up & out of Eygpt) are prone to see questions of justice as “inevitable” – this is not unheard of on the Left (even for experts in philosophy)
I think its inevitable that leftist radical egalitarianism (which is what SSM is) will die and the traditional family will (and is) become widely understood as too precious and practical a standard to be further eroded.
Sorry for the double post – There is some original work added in the second, some glitch messed up the first posting.
Now either all those people are simple bigots or you have not bothered to take their arguments seriously.
They are uncomfortable with change; that only makes them human. Those numbers do represent progress over similar attitudes only 10 years ago though. For those committed to such beliefs, I’d argue that their arguments are based in one of three stances: anti-equality, anti-liberty, or anti-sanctity of marriage. I explain in more detail here.
An expert in philosophy? What does that mean?
A doctorate that more or less settles the matter by any measure worth considering. Perhaps you should read the “about” page near the Kitty.
Well, I’m reading your post Ed.
There are a lot of pre-suppositions there (as in mine)
As just a cursory critique I would say.
Race is not sex is not who you have sex with.
Conflation race class and gender is all the rage (and they managed to slip sexual preference in their also)
As you are well aware our arguments center on traditional family forms being proven as the best incubator of children and overall family health.
Its what standards we set as a society.
More later – gota eat lunch
I think its inevitable that leftist radical egalitarianism (which is what SSM is) will die and the traditional family will (and is) become widely understood as too precious and practical a standard to be further eroded.
I will not stop fighting for my equality (and I suspect you wouldn’t either were the situation reversed).
Only if you (incorrectly) define SSM as equality.
I think this is a good take on things on a practical political level, mentioned in the corner- along with an excellent analysis of the main stream media’s handling of a recent USA-CNN-Gallup poll. (that’s being repressed/distorted)
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
Just scroll down to Stanley Kurtz
You know, Fitz, those numbers you throw around are interesting, but it would be nice to know exactly what you think they show and where they are from. For example, the Oregon number you give is for 1992 Ballot Measure 9. Since I was living in Oregon at the time, I can assure you that (as most Oregonian ballot measures are) it was not as clear cut as you believe it to be. Here is an Oregonian editorial along with a response.
The ballot measure was sponsored by Lon Mabon’s OCA (Oregon Citizens Alliance), and you might be interested to see what Lon has been up to lately (2002)
From the beginning, Lon Mabon refused to approach the bar, saying Cinniger represented a “false and fictional jurisdiction” and asking him to sign a contract “guaranteeing (Mabon’s) rights.”
Cinniger in turn said he would not recognize Mabon until he approached the bar – a standoff that resulted in both men talking over each other through much of the 90-minute hearing.
Here’s a page from a group who seem to have the same feelings that you have, as well as a group that
is closely related to the OCA.
Also, here’s the latest thing I can find from the man himself. Did you know that he ran for to be the Senator from Oregon in 2002? You might want to check out that vote total.
Fitz, I have a question for you:
do you, or other members of your church or community, believe that there is a danger of activist judges forcing your church to perform same sex marriages?
Only if you (incorrectly) define SSM as equality.
I don’t understand this. In this present system marriage is denied to me or offered as a fraudulent, unsacred sham. How could I not see the ability to marry the person I choose as an equality issue.
Ed.
Because the person you choose (if its a SSM) does not have the same value for society as heterosexual relationships.
#1. most people are hetro. (and we value them marrying)
#2. They are incapable of producing children
#3. Your box turtle non-sequinter (i.e. the people I choose)
#4. and many, many more reason you dismiss
Here’s a (very) recent libertarian argument from a (very) respected source.
http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html
Katherine
Yes – (and its a real/ if not immediate danger)
Here’s a (very) recent example from up north…explaining the danger.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0410/opinion/desouza.htm
I see a strawman there – Fitz, what exact value does heterosexual relationships have for society that homosexual relationships don’t? And in what way does this relate to marriage?
I live in the first country that allowed civil unions between same sex partners, and it seems that our society has not been derived of any value whatsoever.
#1. Most people are white. What’s your point?
#2. They are capable of adopting children otherwise parentless. Besides which, is a childless marriage inherently less meaningful? In a CONSTITUTIONAL sense?
#3. Box turtles aren’t people.
#4. and many, many more reasons I dismiss and you don’t explain.
#1. Most people are white
Should read: most Americans are white.
Also Fitz, I only skimmed that opinion piece about Canada, but it didn’t seem to contain anything about churches being forced to marry same sex couples.
st, is that actually factual the case that most people are white? I thought that white people made up the largest group of Americans, but I thought that there is no skincolour that makes up a majority anymore.
I might very well be wrong, hence my question.
What Country are you from Kristjan?
As of 2000, 69% of total population and 72% of population over 18 were white, unless I am reading the chart wrong. (cite)
Im sorry Katherine & Kristjan.
The relevant article by de Souza is
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0404/opinion/desouza.html
Is that relevant Fitz? I can’t really see that the answer could lead to anything but a tangential debate.
Instead you could perhaps start by answering the questions I raised in my 02:55 post – what exact value does heterosexual relationships have for society that homosexual relationships don’t? And in what way does this relate to marriage?
st, I read the table the same way. Thank you for your answer.
I find it relevant. (really what country- I may have info on it that you don’t)
The value is that society has an interest in bringing heterosexuals together and keeping them together (i.e. households) because only that union produces children.
It is generally excepted (and timeless) wisdom that that the natural family is the best environment for rearing children.
Marriage is the mechanism for doing that.
On that point precisely is the following (very) recent and excellent article on the SSM debate by Policy Review
Its against SSM and from a libertarian perspective.
And brings up your question immediately in the article
http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html
KW, you did cite your country as an example of a harmonious modern society of the sort Fitz fears. Lucky for you he’s not savvy enough to look at your email address…
Am I missing a harmonious modern society – I can’t get into her e-mail on my office computer?
Boy, must be quite a utopia. I’m eager to find out.
It is generally excepted (and timeless) wisdom that that the natural family is the best environment for rearing children.
“Natural” according to whom? What is the basis for your naturalism? How does one determine what is and is not natural?
Fitz, Fitz, Fitz….
Are you really this naive?
“The value is that society has an interest in bringing heterosexuals together and keeping them together (i.e. households) because only that union produces children.”
So you equalize heterosexual relationships, even households, with sex? Rape produces children, yet few people are arguing that it is in the interest of society to encurage rape – rather the opposite view seems to be dominating. Also, while heterosexual relationships might produce children, there is no gurantee – yet society doesn’t seem willing to only keep people together that actually have produced children.
“It is generally excepted (and timeless) wisdom that that the natural family is the best environment for rearing children.”
Yes, it is a generally accepted wisdom, yet little research seems to prove this. What has been proven is that children are better off in a functional household, no matter it’s structure, than in a dysfunctional household.
And it might supprise you to know that in certain areas of the world, quite a few people have children without being married.
Ok, to make it simple for Fitz – I live in Denmark. You know, the first country in the world to accept civil unions between partners of the same sex.
It can be debated whether Denmark is an Utopia or not, but there is no indication of any declines after civil unions became a possibility (that happened way before, back in ’68 where pornography was made legal, or so the moralists tells us).
Oh, and Kristjan is not a female name, it’s a different version of Christian. Some times it’s spelled Kristian.
Ah.
As conservatives are very fond of pointing out, the United States is not Europe and it is not Canada. What they are less likely to realize is that while American liberalism shares a lot with European liberalism, it is not the same thing. We are liberal; we are also American. And we have a stubborn, absolutist, libertarian streak that Canadians and Europeans simply lack. This drives us into what I believe is an error in our attitude towards abortion–in Europe they are rarer and much more heavily restricted and much less constitutionally protected than in the United States. But it also keeps us out of what I believe is an error on speech codes like Canada’s.
More importantly, the United States Constitution is not the Canadian Constitution. And American judges are not the same as Canadian judges. You ought to re-read some of Justice Douglas’, Justice Black’s, Justice Marshall’s, and Justice Brennan’s First Amendment decisions.
I believe that you’re really afraid that they will order your church to marry gay people. But I also believe–no: I know, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that your fears are misplaced. Not only would the “activist judges” never order your church to marry gay people–if Congress or the Massachusetts state legislature tried to order your church to do it, they would rule that this violated your First Amendment rights.
In 1969, the Warren Court–including Thurgood Marshall– ruled unanimously that the Ku Kux Klan had a constitutional right to do this:
The only objections to this ruling were from Justice Douglas and Justice Black, who believed it did not go far enough.
Brandenburg was a vindication of Justice Douglas’ dissent 17 years before in Beauharnais v. Illinois:
Every single member of today’s Supreme Court agrees with Justice Douglas, and with the unanimous Court in Brandenburg. I know for a fact that so does Laurence Tribe, every bit as much as Eugene Volokh. I know for a fact that the ACLU would go berserk about this on your behalf. I am confident, though not absolutely certain, that every member of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also agrees. So do I. An overhwelming percentage of the federal judiciary agrees with Brandenburg, and they are bound by it whether they like it or not.
And this would be a much, much easier case than Brandenburg. The claim would not be about hate speech. The claim would be that Congress can command a church to perform a religious service or sacrament that the church refuses to provide. A more blatant violation of the Free Exercise Clause is hard to imagine. A law attempting that would be practically laughed out of court–and that’s if the legislature passed it, which is impossible to imagine. It is even more impossible to imagine the court’s ordering such a thing on the basis of a Constitution rather than a statute. The First Amendment protects the church from the state every bit as much as it protects the state from the church.
I don’t expect you to believe me. But it seems to me that to disbelieve me, you have to assume either that:
1) I’m deliberately deceiving you, or
2) Although I am a liberal activist law student at a liberal activist law school in liberal activist Massachusetts who has spent much of the last three years taking classes with liberal activist professors and reading opinions by liberal activist judges, I know less than you, James Dobson or your local church about the thought and behavior of Massachusetts liberal activists, judges and professors.
Here’s a (very) recent libertarian argument from a (very) respected source.
Morse advances this argument on a premise that is widely discounted in our contemporary laws and social norms (i.e., there’s no requirement that only married people have sex and/or that all married people have children). She uses her anachronistic definition (in the beginning at least, in what strikes me as a gratuitously and transparently trendy introduction) to suggest that she’s OK with denying gays marriage because it’s important to get all straight folks back to her definition of marriage and by letting gays marry it makes her goal that much more difficult.
Boo hoo.
Here’s where she really displays stunted thinking, however
Biologically it’s not possible (currently…but there’s potential advancement that might change this) for two people of the same sex to procreate, but because we also value parents of adopted children, it’s in society’s best interest to set aside that distinction lest we risk suggesting families that adopt are not equal to those who bear children. Other than that issue, Morse is off the deep end here.
Let me make this perfectly clear: People of the same sex are naturally attracted to one another and couple with each other. You can argue about what’s “natural” but I assure you you’ll never convince a single gay person that their affections are not “natural” for them. Your opinion of the matter will never, never, never, never, change that.
Where she’s right (and should do more thinking) is here:
Gay couples create their own marriages without any support (or acknowledgemetn) from the government. Contemporarily speaking, they mate for lenghts as long, if not longer, than many of the straight couples I know. In other words, they’ll place all the responsibilities and obligations of marriage on their relationship ON THEIR OWN, and do so willingly. The issue then becomes why society/government does not show respect for that relationship.
Morse suggests that any deviation from her defintion weakens marriage without proving that the opposite is false: that the rigidity of marriage as she defines it is the exact source of its contemporary weakening, that the individual freedom she dismisses is leading to stronger, happier marriages and not the shackles that lead to abuses of all sorts she seems to have conveniently forgotten:
More common? What kind of destructive behavior is she talking about here?
What happens in a marriage when a couple no longer loves each other but is forced by social norms or laws to remain together? Happiness? Healthy relationships? Environments we even want children growing up in? Fidelity?
The answer is none of those. What happens is misery, abuse, infidelity, and an enviroment in which children learn and then perpetuate dysfunction.
Morse’s definition is absolutely Victorian. If that’s what the FMA and other such efforts are working so hard to protect, consistency demands you fight for laws that address the issues of couples who don’t procreate (perhaps rescinding their benefits progressively up toward menopause or impotence, after which their marriage becomes null and void) or couples who don’t remain faithful. Until those issues are addressed (and we both know they won’t be), this distinction remains unfair and discriminatory.
“People of the same sex are naturally attracted to one another and couple with each other. You can argue about what’s “natural” but I assure you you’ll never convince a single gay person that their affections are not “natural” for them.”
Research shows that it is quite common for animals to participate in homosexual behaviour – so homosexuality must be consiered “natural”.
Source: The Natural “Crime Against Nature” – A Brief Survey of Homosexual Behaviors In Animals
Katherine
I’m was a law student myself Katherine.
(and an attorney now)
why go to 1969 to find free speech cases.
Why not go to the recent McCain-Feingold legislation.
If we are talking about core political speech.
And wouldn’t it be upheld as a free exercise religious rite and not a speech case?
Its not that I don’t believe you- its that any fear I have regarding that matter (my Church) becomes that much more of a danger if SSM is legalized (as the article points out)
Kristjan maybe your thinking could be more, well Christian.
any fear I have regarding that matter (my Church) becomes that much more of a danger if SSM is legalized
I wish I knew how to address this concern. Let me try, but please don’t be insulted if I get this wrong. I’m sincerly trying…
Disclaimer: Not all churches feel the same way about gay marriage. Obviously I hope all churches would eventually recognize them, but that’s not even remotely on my radar at the moment.
To worry that your church would be forced to recognize gay marriages is confusing to me. Your church is not forced to marry Muslim people or Jewish people or Buddhists, I imagine, nor will it ever be.
Your church is not forced to marry those who oppose its teachings either, so why would they be forced to marry two people of the same sex if that’s against their teachings?
Perhaps, as gay marriage becomes more widely accepted, churches would feel the pressure to change, but there’s a very wide spectrum of churches available, from the most conservative to the most liberal, and you’re free to worship at the one that makes sense for you.
Denying marriage to gay people so you won’t even have to approach the issue is using a body cast where a band-aid would suffice, IMO.
Ed.
I was responding to an inquiry from Katherine ed.
The dangers are already happening however in other countries.
Read
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0404/opinion/desouza.html
I admire the effort, but am not sure why you’re bothering to make it. Fitz isn’t interested in a true give and take of views; he only wants validation for his viewpoint. He thinks he’s getting it, because you keep trying to engage him in debate.
Trust me on this. He’s been playing the same game over at Drum’s site since forever. His views on women, role of; childbirth, sacredness of; and female or same-sex autonomy, threat to Western Civilization of; are even more egregiously expressed there than here.
ahhh…Canadian Law.
If that article is accurate, then you’re right, Fitz, that is worrisome. But only for Canadians, IMO. They need to sort that out for themselves, although I would support their clergy’s right to not perform gay marriages, if I were a Canadian.
CasyL
I already feel my views are validated.
After all a billion Catholics world wide are mourning the death of a renowned and beloved figure.
His, my own, and the other billion Christians- share the same pole-star (we call it Christianity)
And its well backed by reason,science and shared by majorities of the population. (certainly on this issue)
Who’s Drum?
Why go to 1969? Because it is the ground-laying case for first amendment caselaw? Because it directly addresses your fears with regards to your church being required to perform same sex marriages.
McCain-Feingold deals with campaign speech, not marriage…so it isn’t salient at all when it comes to your concern about your church.
Freedom of religion goes both ways, Fitz. In no instance of legal same-sex marriage in the states has a church been forced to perform the ceremony. (Why anyone would want to be married in a church that didn’t want them there is a completely valid question here.)
Marriage, as far as the government is concerned is a civil institution. It can also be a religious one, but that isn’t required for marriage to be marriage under the current system. Children, FYI, aren’t required either, in the civil system. In fact, marriage itself is promoted by the government…regardless of children. You get a nominal benefit on your taxes, and you are automatically granted lots of additional rights once you marry. Those rights are not contingent upon children.
In fact, children bring more tax relief, and additional rights and responsibilities, but in the civil sense, those rights, responsibilities and relief are not contingent upon marriage. If you are married, you share them…but you don’t have to be married to earn them.
The “gay marriage won’t produce children scenario” is no good…marriage isn’t required to produce children. The idea that, by recognizing same sex couples to marry, no one will have kids again is ridiculous. We’re a modern soceity…no longer agrarian. People can choose to have children, or choose not to. I would hope that you agree that the best home for a child to be brought up in is a home that actively wanted that child in the first place.
The “my church will have to perform same sex marriages” premise falls down too, as Katherine ably pointed out.
And your christian snark? That is rude, and awfully pretentious of you. No one in this country is required to be christian, remember? Ditto for denmark.
Crutan
I never made any claim that my Church would be forced to perform SSM – As the article points out, there are plenty of dangers all the way up to that point- if Homosexuality is given civil rights status.
And McCain/Fiengold is about core political speech and sets a whole new precedant into what private speech is capable of being regulated by the government. Therefore Germaine
If a church,lets make it Baptist (make it Primitive Baptist that’s about the most conservative I can think of right now) has employees that are not church members, say a cleaning crew or something. Does the church have to recognize those employees’ marriages even if the employee is Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist? Does it have to pay for the health insurance for those employees’ spouses? Do they get all up in arms about it? What is the difference between those marriages and a same sex marriage to the church?
If they do have a problem with any of the above can they legally only give jobs to church members?
Sorry if this messes up the flow of the conversation, but it just occurred to me that paying for health insurance for employees’ spouses is a roundabout way of recognizing marriages of various faiths and I think most churches do pay that insurance without complaint. Don’t they?
“Therefore Germaine”
(I had always wondered what accounted for the author of The Female Eunuch. Now I know.)
After all a billion Catholics world wide are mourning the death of a renowned and beloved figure.
His, my own, and the other billion Christians- share the same pole-star (we call it Christianity)
And its well backed by reason,science and shared by majorities of the population. (certainly on this issue)
Fitz…dude…this borders on being defensibly sloppy or sloppily defensive. Bring it in a bit please.
Christianity is my religion too, but that doesn’t mean I feel it should dictate US law. We have a 1st Amendment that protects non-Christians from just such nonsense.
If they do have a problem with any of the above can they legally only give jobs to church members?
I think so long as the money is not from taxes, they can, no?
The Catholic Church reserves the right not to hire anynumber of people for any number of reasons. (divorce, religion, lifestyle)
Thats why there is further danger in the SSM debate
Thats why there is further danger in the SSM debate
How?
No. The danger to your church is if politicians can bully and intimidate judges into not upholding the Constitution when doing so protects an unpopular minority against the wishes of a majority.
I believe that you are a lawyer, but I am frankly shocked that a lawyer would publicly discuss thinking, even idly, about the murder of judges and law professors.
I guess after John Yoo’s escapades nothing should surprise me, but it still does.
I was discussing free exercise, but the article you linked to discussed hate speech; I thought I would discuss that first. As I said, free exercise is a much, much easier case.
I went to 1969 because this is a precedent that has stood for thirty six years, and because it is no longer being challenged. The more recent cases deal with whether an activity is being restricted because of its content, or the opinion or idea it expresses, which the First Amendment protects; or that the government is outlawing an action rather than an idea, which the First Amendment allows. The most relevant recent case that I can think of is Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, a 1995 case in which the Supreme Court held unanimously that it would be unconstitutional to condition a St. Patrick’s Day Parade permit on the parade organizers allowing a group of Irish-American gay people to march under a banner that identified their sexual orientation.
Again, a law requiring a church or minister to perform the sacrament of marriage on certain people, or any religious ceremony, is a much easier case than this. It would be grossly unconstitutional. This isn’t Canada, and this certainly isn’t Oliver Cromwell’s or Henry VIII’s England. This is America. America has a constitution that vigorously protects individual rights, interpreted by a Supreme Court that cannot be overturned by a majority vote. Arguably the Supreme Court protects individual rights too vigorously, but it’s pretty evenhanded about it when it comes to free speech and free exercise. You might like the results of ending this for a few years, because the current majority agrees with you. But they may stop agreeing with you when you are no longer convenient, and they may not be in the majority forever.
Edward
This understanding of America and the first amendment is common but totally flawed and illogical.
Example: Thou shall not steal- oops, Christian law, get that (poor reading) of the establishment clause out so we can stop the theocracy.
Repeal all laws against theft.
I was responding to CaseyL regardless.
This understanding of America and the first amendment is common but totally flawed and illogical.
Example: Thou shall not steal- oops, Christian law, get that (poor reading) of the establishment clause out so we can stop the theocracy.
Repeal all laws against theft.
Talk about flawed and illogical…It’s not the ideas that religions and non-religious people alike share that should not be made law, but rather those that are exclusive to one religion, and perhaps oppressive to others.
I was responding to CaseyL regardless.
That’s the second time you’ve used that. This is an open forum. You’re entitled to ignore others’ comments but not insinuate they can’t/shouldn’t question yours.
“Example: Thou shall not steal- oops, Christian law, get that (poor reading) of the establishment clause out so we can stop the theocracy.”
Really? There are no laws against theft in non-Christian countries? None before Jesus’s life (I am pretty sure it was covered in Hammurabi’s Code)?
Fitz, uh, yes you did say that you were concerned with that very thing.
Katherine asked you in a comment at 1:28pm:
Fitz, I have a question for you:
do you, or other members of your church or community, believe that there is a danger of activist judges forcing your church to perform same sex marriages?
To which you responded in a post at 2:50pm:
Katherine
Yes – (and its a real/ if not immediate danger)
A little cut and paste makes your answer to be:
Yes, I believe that there is a danger of activist judges forcing my church to perform same sex marriages. – and its a real / if not immediate danger.
Gota have dinner Kathy/Edward & Co.
Kathy – I remember that case from Law school. Im a freespeech advocate myself. Is not the Boyscouts 5-4 decision worrisome to you also?
Gays dont need or should be granted (or even want in some cases) special civil rights protections.
Not by making marriage a civil right – or any other that I can think of.
To many complications for the law & to many dangers for the family structure/standards and etho’s of society.
You know the argument.
His, my own, and the other billion Christians- share the same pole-star (we call it Christianity)…
Please let’s not ascribe to all Christians the views of some, OK? Several American protestant demoninations have been struggling with the questions of whether to allow clergy to preside over same-sex marriages and to allow the ordination of non-chaste gays & lesbians. The debate is not as one-sided as you imply.
Edward wrote-
“”Talk about flawed and illogical…It’s not the ideas that religions and non-religious people alike share that should not be made law, but rather those that are exclusive to one religion, and perhaps oppressive to others.””
Its whatever laws the majorities want through their legislatures – regardless of why they want them (as long as the dont rise to a level of establishing a religion)
“Example: Thou shall not steal-”
Example: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Law?
Example: Thou shalt not make for thyself a carved image. . . Law?
Example: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Law?
This whole ‘our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles’ thing is absurdly silly. Of the 10 commandments, 2 coincide with US law (murder and theft), and those same 2 exist in every modern legal system in the world, Christian or not. Almost none of the moral precepts variously promoted by Christ or the Apostles exist in law. Can people please stop saying this?
“Can people please stop saying this?”
They never will. It would put facts in the way of a good agenda.
Its whatever laws the majorities want through their legislatures – regardless of why they want them (as long as the dont rise to a level of establishing a religion)
Slight correction…it’s whatever laws that majorities want that are constitutional. If the majority wants to oppress a minority, fortunately there are safeguards to prevent that.
“Im a freespeech advocate myself.”
No. I’m sorry, but this is false. You are a speech-I-like advocate. Anyone suggesting that violence against law professors–not judges, who are agents of the state, but law professors at private universities–may be justified because the ideas they express threaten your values, is not a free speech advocate. Free speech advocates don’t think expressing ideas should be punishable by death.
They would protect your right be free from any government sanction for saying they should be killed, as long as you kept the threats vague enough that it was not actually harassment or incitement (the first amendment doesn’t protect your right to tell a hitman “I will pay you $10000 to murder Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo”; it does protect your right to call Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo murderer). You think that murdering law professors might be justifiable because they express opinions you don’t like about the Constitution, and judges might find them persuasive.
Unless you did not mean that. But you said it. I will assume you meant it–not in the sense that you plan to kill anyone, but that you think it might be morally justified for someone else to–until you fully retract it.
The one thing that the world definitely does not need more of right now is children. And I say that as a parent. If children is the only justification of marriage (or even the primary one), there’s a lot of childless couples out there that I imagine shouldn’t be married as far as you’re concerned.
Yeah, I’ve seen this figure bandied about. It’s at odds with other figures, but I’d guess that the real number is somewhere upward of four hundred million, which is far larger than I’d thought.
Fitz, I think you would appreciate a blogpost of mine from last year: 12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married.
I disagree strongly with your remark about penguins, J. Puffins, too, fly underwater.
Kathleen (wrote)
“”(the first amendment doesn’t protect your right to tell a hitman “I will pay you $10000 to murder Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo”; it does protect your right to call Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo murderer)””
I never said this.
And get off your high hoarse.
If you believe, like you said, that Roe v Wade is bad law.
And if I believe (like so many others) that abortion is the killing of innocent human life.
Then someone’s got 40 million deaths on their hands.
The problem with Christians is their to forgiving.
If I want to Kill law professors (and I don’t -nor advocate it, nor intend to) Its because they DONT allow opinions other than their own on campus.
They have been running a 40 year game were they get whatever they want through the courts.
People are fed up -and now they have filibustered appellate court nominees for 5 years.
Mark my words- If the courts don’t change directions and return to there proper function.
Then your goanna see everything from article 3 limitations on jurisdiction – to elected and term limited judiciary – and so fourth.
I for one have more respect for the law than that (because I know how its supposed to work)
My Father is an Attorney, my grandfather was an attorney and his father.
No trail court judge is allowed to treat statutes like the Supremes have been treating law.
Hell – we cant even get a partial birth abortion ban through.
(you mentioned before that you know its worked out different in Europe)
This is a B.S. oligarchy,
Judicial tyranny pure and simple.
If the rhetoric gets heated- and you don’t like it, than get out of the kitchen.
‘If I want to do A (but I don’t), it’s because B’ is a bizarre construction. Very Discordian.
“Kristjan maybe your thinking could be more, well Christian.”
See, while I am not a Christian, I believe the Christian message is one of love and tolerance (if you disagree, go read up on Jesus’ sermons and look at the people he surrounded himself with) – in other words, allowing other people equal rights are well within my definition of Christian thinking.
It’s funny how people keep going back to the Old Testament on issues like homosexuality, when the New Testamant is supposed to have superseeded it.
Also, I find it interesting that few people who focus on Christianity and uses it to justify discrimmination, never seem to focus on the parts about how rich people should give up their wealth. Wouldn’t a campaign for that be more justified in light of Jesus’ teachings?
Slarti: I disagree strongly with your remark about penguins, J. Puffins, too, fly underwater.
Then clearly puffins, like penguins, are unnatural.
Fitz: The problem with Christians is their to forgiving.
The kingdom of heaven is like a collective blog called the Armed Kitten who wanted to settle accounts with their regular commenters. As they began the settlement, a commenter who had posted endorsements of violence and abused others for their opinions was brought to them. Since he refused to give up his evil ways, the Armed Kitten ordered that he should be banned forever.
The commenter fell on his knees before the Kitten. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘for I can’t change the way I say things but I mean no real harm.’ The Armed Kitten took pity on him and let him go without banning him.
But when that commenter went out, he found one of the other commenters who had been sarcastic about him. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Be more polite to me!’ he demanded.
His fellow commenter fell to his knees and begged (in a rather choked voice), ‘Be patient with me, and I will quit being so sarcastic.’
But he refused. Instead, he went off and complained to the Armed Kitten that the other commenter should be banned.. When the other commenters saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told the Armed Kitten everything that had happened.
Then the Armed Kitten called the commenter in. ‘You hypocrite,’ the Kitten said, ‘Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow commenter just as I had on you?’ In anger the Armed Kitten turned him over to the Bush Administration to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
“If I want to Kill law professors (and I don’t -nor advocate it, nor intend to) Its because they DONT allow opinions other than their own on campus.”
I find it fairly amazing that a thread that I believe was started to explain exactly what is so wrong with this type of statement has now degenerated to producing one.
It also might be worth considering at what point this kind of statement ought to be considered a violation of the posting rules.
Research shows that it is quite common for animals to participate in homosexual behaviour – so homosexuality must be consiered “natural”.
The Director of our Amsterdam Zoo actually organized special homosexuality tours around the same gender couples in Artis 😉
Kristjan maybe your thinking could be more, well Christian.
Episcopalians aren’t Christian anymore? Actually in the Netherlands Christian Church blessing for homosexuals started with the ‘Remonstrantse broederschap’ in 1986, Civil Unions in 1998 and marriage (civil, church weddings as such don’t exist for the law) since 2001.
Dutchmarbel-“church weddings as such don’t exist for the law”
Which is, IMHO, the best way to abolish all of this nonsense about the defense of marriage. Get rid of marriage on the governmental level at all. Define marriage simply as ‘a sacred institution defined by the individual’s religion’ and then adopt civil unions for all legal purposes. The government has no business regulating licenses for religious institutions and their pronouncements regarding their religious validity mean nothing. All that really matters is civil standing. Let the churches and whatnot fight about the religious questions.
There is no excuse for specifically and intentionally targeting innocent civilians.* You’ve cited a loosely reported anecdote in which U.S. soldiers may have behaved improperly in the pursuit of an enemy combatant. Assuming it’s true — a huge assumption — it is light years away from an intentional attack on civilians by a suicide bomber.
Reuters – U.S. Says Detained Iraqi Women Were Not Held Hostage
Looks like Hostage Taking is now part of our Military Strategy in Iraq, at least it wasn’t torture.
Fitz, in your profound wisdom could you please enlighten this poor benighted soul as to the Constitutional authority for a ban on partial birth abortion?
And if, perchance, you find such authority in the Commerce Clause, please explain to we ignorami how you reconcile this view with your theories of constitutional interpretation.
(btw, “horse”, not “hoarse” [high hoarse sounds like an overworked American Idol contestant]; “they’re too” not “their to”; “their proper function” not “there proper function”; “trial” not “trail” courts. A few typos are fine; you’re starting to sound like a denizen of FreeRepublic.)