by liberal japonicus
The Washington Post has an article on the immigration reform package in Utah, and it might be surprising to a lot of people here. Some key grafs below the fold
Religion
Protecting the odious
by fiddler
The US Supreme Court issued a majority opinion today that the homophobic and hostile Westboro Baptist Church is covered by the First Amendment when its members picket outside funerals; this is based on the grounds that the substance of the protests could be considered commentary on national matters.
“As a nation we have chosen…to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
The Westboro church believes that any misfortune America suffers is divine punishment for the nation’s failure to follow the sect’s doctrine, which condemns gays, Catholics, Jews and others. The tiny church, whose membership largely consists of the founder’s family, pickets military funerals to get attention for its message.
This majority opinion stretches the First Amendment until it squeaks at the edges, to get it to cover hate-mongering and homophobia because those attitudes are associated with a presumed theological critique of national affairs. Eight of the nine justices concurred in the majority opinion, though Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate opinion partially modifying his concurrence. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in a separate opinion that pointed out relevant issues that had not been considered by the court.
Immunizing Westboro from tort action means that the plaintiff, Albert Snyder, cannot sue in civil court for damages related to Westboro’s picketing at the 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. An earlier Pennsylvania court decision that slapped Westboro with a $10.9 million judgment for the Snyder funeral protest was overturned on appeal before the case arrived at the Supreme Court.
Shorter Douthat: It’s embarassing to be such a bigot
Social conservative NYT columnist Ross Douthat admits that he’s uncomfortable discussing gay marriage in public because he opposes it for no good reason:
Media barred from Media Courage award ceremony
By Lindsay Beyerstein Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent and Adele Stan of AlterNet report that the media were barred from the Media Courage award ceremony at the Values Voter summit this weekend. Only Fox News was allowed to film inside the auditorium where Fox News host Bill O'Reilly was being feted (or fetid, depending … Read more
Listening To The Voice Of Creation
by hilzoy I see that while I was away celebrating Christmas, Pope Benedict decided, as Time put it, to take “a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender.” Here’s what he said: “What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the … Read more
The Warren Wedge
by publius
Since my spectrum post didn’t get many comments, you’ve forced me to talk about Rick Warren. And while I’m not exactly a fan of this guy, I don’t think inviting him to give the invocation is a big deal. Ready to comment now? I thought so.
On one level, no one should be surprised by this move. Obama consistently reached out to evangelicals throughout the campaign. He also quite deliberately avoided hot button cultural issues that galvanize these voters. The invitation to Warren is consistent with a long pattern of outreach. That said, the mere fact that he’s reached out in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that this particular invite is a good idea.
Obviously, Prop 8 complicates things. If the wounds of Prop 8 weren’t so raw, I think the invite would be a no-brainer good idea. But as Ed Kilgore astutely observes, Prop 8 has radicalized progressives. It’s a little bit like the backlash that followed the Fugitive Slave Act. It was one thing to know that slavery existed in some faraway land. But the FSA forced people who were already free to be captured and sent back to slavery. Seeing freemen seized on the streets of Boston radicalized the North in a new kind of way (I have an old old post on this). Perhaps the analogy is strained — but I think something similar has happened with Prop 8. California reached in and destroyed existing marriages — and now, something has changed.
And I don’t mean to discount that anger at all. It’s well-deserved, and Rick Warren deserves plenty of blame. But all that said, it’s important not to let blinding anger obscure the larger long-term political benefits of Obama’s outreach. Nixon famously said you can’t ignore a billion people. That logic applies here too. More on that below.
Who Decides?
by publius One last point on the Christian Right. In Orin Kerr’s admittedly insightful post, he views the culture wars through a “political process” lens. That is, he argues that social conservatives’ preferred constitutional positions (e.g., abortion, school prayer, gay rights) simply preserve the political process. Liberal positions, by contrast, remove those issues from the … Read more
The Psychology of Oogedy-Boogedyism
by publius
Kathleen Parker’s column has stirred up a lot of debate about what exactly is so “oogedy-boogedy” about the “Christian Right.” (Jonah Goldberg thinks not much; Kevin Drum disagrees). It’s true that many liberals and secularish conservatives are a bit freaked out by that particular wing of the party – but why exactly?
It’s certainly not because of religion alone. And it’s not simply because liberals strongly disagree with social conservatives’ political views. I mean, I happen to think that strong versions of economic libertarianism are pretty silly – if not downright pernicious (though I do consider myself a hard core social libertarian). But I don’t have the visceral loathing toward economic libertarians that I have toward, say, James Dobson or Sarah Palin. Why is that?
Personally, I think the oogedy-boogedyness stems from fear – on some level, liberals are simply afraid of social conservatives. Fairly or no, liberals perceive them as a direct and credible threat to their own personal liberties.
Interestingly, this same fear is precisely why social conservatives loathe liberals – on some level, they are afraid of us. Orin Kerr had a very insightful post on this issue a few months back. His question was simple – why do conservatives care so much about the courts? In particular, why do average conservatives obsess about courts more than average liberals do?
His answer was that conservatives tend to perceive courts as direct threats to their personal lives. He writes:
For conservatives — especially social conservatives, and especially religious conservatives — the question has been whether the courts will allow their views, not whether the courts will mandate them.
For liberals, by contrast, the question has merely been whether the court will mandate their preferred views on “hot button” cultural issues such as abortion and school prayer. I’d quibble with parts of his post, but I think he’s right at least in terms of perceptions. Conservatives hate courts because they view them as direct and tangible attacks on their liberties. That’s the same reason why social conservatives hate liberals.
I think a similar dynamic, however, exists with liberal perceptions of social conservatives.
God and Money in Small Towns
by publius As I’ve already written, I don’t think Obama’s comments are a big deal. In fact, a combination of Feiler Faster and Annie Oakley seem to be shifting the news cycle as we speak. But that said, Obama’s comments do show a bit of ignorance with respect to religion in small towns. To me, … Read more
Open Thread: ‘Muslims In Space’ Edition
by hilzoy Via Unfogged, an article in Discover: “As Malaysia’s space program prepares to send the country’s first astronaut to the space station next year, it is confronting some of the standard first-astronaut questions: what scientific research to pursue, which local delicacy to bring aboard, and who among the eager candidates should go. It is … Read more