Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Cathy Young considers why senators in judicial confirmation hearings might seek a little divine guidance.
|8.2.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Cathy Young writes that "If a Catholic nominee were asked
whether he or she shuns artificial birth control, that would be
completely outrageous."
So I take it she would agree that Sen. Schumer's questions about
Judge Pryor's choice to reschedule his vacation to Disney World to
avoid "gay days" were "completely outrageous"?
|8.2.05 @ 10:42AM|#
As for complaints of "religious intolerance," let's not
forget that, in today's America, an outspoken atheist would have a
snowball's chance in hell of being confirmed for a federal
judgeship. For that matter, he would never be nominated.
Excellent point!
|8.2.05 @ 10:43AM|#
Good article, Cathy.
Durbin's question, if asked as presented is a legitimate one. Which
takes importance, U.S. law, or church law? For a position that
designed to uphold U.S. law, asking whether a person would uphold
it even against the tenets of his faith is not a religious litmus
test.
That said, I wonder how many people actually share Tony Perkins
view. I have a hunch that so long as it's their own beliefs
substituted for the law, most will have no problem with it. I'm
curious to how they'd react to a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, or Buddhist
on the SCOTUS.
|8.2.05 @ 10:46AM|#
Dick Durban is becoming the King of Unnecessary Apologies.
Wussy.
Seamus, interesting question. Asking about birth control seems to
be a bit more intrusive than asking about vacation plans.
|8.2.05 @ 10:48AM|#
"a non-religious ideological witch hunt can be just as bad as a
religious one; look at the attempts to exploit Roberts's ties to
the Federalist Society,"
these throw away lines just kill me. I agree with everything in the
article except this is just such an inaccurate way to describe what
happened.
Judge Roberts said he was never a memeber of the Federalist
Society, then a reporter reported that he was listed in the
membership. That was the issue. Frankly, I would have expe4cted
anyone Bush nominated to be a member, and membership in that
organization would guarantee a no vote from me, but I would not
make a big deal out of it.
|8.2.05 @ 10:53AM|#
I do indeed feel sorry for the poor oppressed Christians in our society, but take heart! Times are changing; you may yet live long enough to see an openly practicing Christian elected to some political office in this country. Maybe even the White House!
|8.2.05 @ 10:59AM|#
Jennifer, you have no idea what it's like for me as a Catholic. Every day I walk into the lab and realize that I'm surrounded by atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even a few Protestants! Given the adverse work environment that I face, shouldn't my demographic enjoy some kind of legal protection?
|8.2.05 @ 11:04AM|#
Oh, absolutely, Thoreau. As a member of the dominant atheist majority, I can't even BEGIN to imagine what life must be like for you--having people assume you're an amoral murderer just because you believe in a higher being, working as a schoolteacher and having to keep your lack of lack of faith hidden from your students and colleagues, seeing your tax dollars pay for that huge granite GOD DOES NOT EXIST monument in Alabama--how the hell do you stand it?
|8.2.05 @ 11:14AM|#
And let's not forget the time the father of our current President, who at the time was the President himself, went on the record to say that "believers in God shouldn't be considered citizens." I don't blame y'all for being pissed off.
|8.2.05 @ 11:14AM|#
Bush is now pushing intelligent design. Roberts should be asked
about this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200493.html
|8.2.05 @ 11:23AM|#
It's good to know that religious believers in America are gaining the courage to speak out on matters of pseudo-science! Some day we might even gain the political clout to get one of our major celebrations declared a national holiday.
|8.2.05 @ 11:24AM|#
Now, now, Thoreau. Hope is wonderful, but don't go setting yourself up for disappointment down the road.
|8.2.05 @ 11:32AM|#
If Durbin really did ask these questions, his mistake is more of
sloppiness than anti-religious bigotry. As an employer, I am
essentially forbidden by law from asking a prospective employee
questions about his or her religion or lack thereof. I am
permitted, however, to ask work-related questions which may touch
on religious matters. Thus, I can ask whether they can work on
Sundays, but not whether they're a Christian.
So my question is, why didn't Durbin just ask him directly about
his stance on abortion and the death penalty? Why bring up the
religion hot potato when there's no need?
|8.2.05 @ 11:33AM|#
"not forget that, in today's America, an outspoken atheist would
have a snowball's chance in hell of being confirmed for a federal
judgeship. For that matter, he would never be nominated."
Well, Posner may not actually be "outspoken" about being an
atheist, but I'd be shocked if he weren't one. He strikes me as
this generation's version of his hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr.
|8.2.05 @ 11:34AM|#
Didn't Thomas Jefferson once say that he has doubts about the
divinity of Jesus?
Just more proof that we believers are an oppressed minority!
|8.2.05 @ 11:37AM|#
Posner is a self-identified atheist, though with typically judicial precision, he specifies that he means by this "someone with no particular sense that there's a god" as opposed to "someone who feels metaphysically certain there can't be a god."
B.D.|8.2.05 @ 11:38AM|#
Or, rather, that should have been addressed to thoreau. Sorry, believers all look alike to me.
|8.2.05 @ 11:39AM|#
thoreau,
I was always under the impression, for whatever reason, that the
majority of the Founding Fathers -- or at least the most relevant
ones -- were non-denominational Deists (of which I happen to be
one). The reasons for their establishment of amendments respective
of religious faith were written to contrast the "Anglican-only"
rules in England for holding political office at that time.
|8.2.05 @ 11:40AM|#
believers all look alike to me.
You're a rabid anti-theist. It starts with a few insults. "Theists
all look alike!" Next thing you know you're saying that their
clergy should go to their own special schools!
|8.2.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Thoreau--
Special schools are not enough. Clergymen should be required to
wear special collars on the street, so they can be easily
distinguished from their REAL American brethren.
B.D.|8.2.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Jennifer,
My error! Damn, with these errors, I am sure that I need coffee.
Coffee: the ahteist's substitution for flogging.
|8.2.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Jennifer (bigot)-
And after the special collars, what's next? Special taxes on
believers, requiring them to give 10% of their income?
Actually, compared to the IRS, that doesn't sound so bad!
|8.2.05 @ 11:46AM|#
We live in a time when there is a growing movement, backed
by most conservatives, for the Catholic Church to excommunicate
public officials who support abortion rights. If religion is going
to have that kind of political influence, it's a bit hypocritical
to complain when a politician's or judge's religion becomes an
issue.
First off, the excommunication crusade is an example of politics
attempting to influence the Church, not the other way around. Any
organization which has members who use their considerable political
power to oppose a basic belief of the organization, yet are elected
over and over again, can be said to have minimal political
power.
Thus, the Catholic Church having "that kind of political influence"
is contradicted by the presence of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Joe
Biden, Pat Leahy, etc. in office, despite their opposition to the
2000-year-old teaching of the Church, not even including the
further milennia of its Jewish roots, that abortion is an
abominable crime.
|8.2.05 @ 11:48AM|#
Actually, Thoreau, I don't think mere collars are enough to set
y'all apart. I think special black robes and undignified hats are
called for.
And once a week--maybe on a Sunday, to totally fuck up your
weekend--you should have to drag your butts out of bed to go listen
to a guy in ugly clothes tell you what a bunch of loathsome sinners
you are.
|8.2.05 @ 11:48AM|#
crimethink, you know that when you make historical statements like that you're just begging for a historian to come and chuckle at you...
|8.2.05 @ 11:49AM|#
thoreau and Jennifer, whatever point you were trying to make
has been made.
Yeah, well we're playing a game here, pal.
|8.2.05 @ 11:50AM|#
I suggest Crimethink go read "The Art of Rhetoric" and "Getting Your Point Across" before he further embarrasses himself.
|8.2.05 @ 11:54AM|#
. . . the 2000-year-old teaching of the Church, not even
including the further milennia of its Jewish roots, that abortion
is an abominable crime.
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Jewish religion has any such
teaching dating back 2000 or more years. This is, quite simply, a
lie.
|8.2.05 @ 11:54AM|#
crimethink,
"So my question is, why didn't Durbin just ask him directly about
his stance on abortion and the death penalty? Why bring up the
religion hot potato when there's no need?" Because asking about his
judicial philosophy and his reasoning process is more useful than
asking about what he thinks about particular issues, or how he'd
vote in a certain case. Also, Catholic doctrine touches on quite a
bit more than those two particular issues.
"First off, the excommunication crusade is an example of politics
attempting to influence the Church, not the other way around." Ah,
that must be why the Pope, the Cardinals, and the other clergy and
laypeople who spoke out against John Kerry's taking communion, and
wanted him excommunicated, so studiously avoided the press during
the election, and carried out their consultations behind closed
doors. Because they didn't want to influence politics. Ahem
ahem.
B.D.|8.2.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Jennifer: "Actually, Thoreau, I don't think mere collars are
enough to set y'all apart. I think special black robes and
undignified hats are called for."
Why black? Is that because the white ones are already taken?
|8.2.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Oh, and Kerry announces his agreement with the Church believe
that abortion is a horrible crime. Repeatedly. Including in the
debates.
Did you forget that?
|8.2.05 @ 11:58AM|#
"Neither the Catholic Church nor the Jewish religion has any
such teaching dating back 2000 or more years. This is, quite
simply, a lie.
Yes, the people who spout the line that the Church cannot change
its eternal teaching about abortion tend to forget that said
eternal teaching dates back to the 1800s, and that prior to that,
the Church had a completely different eternal teaching about the
beginning of human life.
|8.2.05 @ 11:59AM|#
B.D.--
Black to connote deep spiritual darkness. But white collars,
because they're just a bitch to keep clean.
Depending on how much time I have this afternoon, I may even spread
a vicious and totally unfounded rumor that some of these guys have
an unwholesome fondness for little boys. . . .
|8.2.05 @ 12:02PM|#
joe,
The Pope has the authority to excommunicate any Catholic, as does
the Archbishop of Boston, so if either or them wanted John Kerry
excommunicated, he would be. He did speak about denying communion
to -- not excommunicating -- those who publicly disagreed with the
Church on abortion, but did not name names.
And, seriously, can you blame the Church for trying to make sure
that those who claim to be its members actually believe what it
teaches, or at least don't publicly deny what it teaches?
|8.2.05 @ 12:03PM|#
In all seriousness, didn't the Catholic Church, for the majority of its existence, teach that life (or ensoulment, whatever) began at "the quickening," which is to say the first time the mother could feel movement inside of her?
|8.2.05 @ 12:04PM|#
Oliver Ellsworth was an avowed Calvinist. Thus its not
surprising that the would be would concerned with someone's
religious beliefs.
Trivia: Ellsworth also was one of the chief authors of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 from whence our original version of federal
trial and mid-level appellate courts derive.
|8.2.05 @ 12:06PM|#
joe,
tbh, I didn't watch the debates, since there was no way I was going
to vote for either of those fools. Did Kerry actually say abortion
was a horrible crime, or did he just reiterate the weaselism "I'm
personally against it, but...," the inconsistency of which I
explained in the Ron Bailey thread a couple of days ago?
|8.2.05 @ 12:08PM|#
crimethink,
What's wrong with saying that you don't support abortion because of
your religious beliefs but understanding that not everyone shares
those beliefs?
|8.2.05 @ 12:11PM|#
you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which
is born.
-- The Didache (Teachings of the 12 Apostles), chapter
2
The Didache was probably written in the first century AD, but
certainly no later than the second. Not quite 2000 years old, but
pretty old nonetheless.
|8.2.05 @ 12:12PM|#
jennifer,
You are essentially correct. Don't expect consistency from the
Catholic Church; they've been all over the map on lots of issues
(e.g., slavery, capitalism, equality for women, etc.).
Early Christians didn't consider abortion a sin prior to a fetus
being "ensouled," which ranged from over a month to three
months.
The Concordia Discordantium Canonum (the first compilation
of canon law accepted by the Church) did not count pre-ensouled
abortions as a sin (this was a 12th century text).
|8.2.05 @ 12:17PM|#
jennifer,
Also, Jewish tradition has consistently allowed for a life of the
mother exception even for the "ensouled," and it even points at
times to a parasitic notion of the fetus.
|8.2.05 @ 12:18PM|#
"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that
which is born.
-- The Didache (Teachings of the 12 Apostles), chapter 2"
The Didache was probably written in the first century AD, but
certainly no later than the second. Not quite 2000 years old, but
pretty old nonetheless.
Not for nothing, but that begs the question of what the authors of
the document believed "a child" was. Here's a good starting point:
Orthodox and Reform Judaism (and maybe Conservative) believe to
this day, as they did in the time of the Apostles, that a fetus is
not a "full life" until its head emerges from the mother's vagina.
Prior to that, it is a "partial life," and there are perfectly
allowable circumstances under which it can be ended, particularly
if delivering it will kill the mother.
It's a good bet that that's what the authors of The Didache
believed. Which sort of makes my point a little more, and yours a
little less.
|8.2.05 @ 12:18PM|#
In regard to the question of when life begins, the actual
mechanism of conception (sperm + oocyte = zygote) was not
discovered until the 18th century. When Thomas Aquinas and other
churchmen of the medieval period wrote about life beginning at
quickening, the were not denying that the zygote was a human life,
since they didn't even know of its existence.
After all, one cannot expect churchmen to be more scientifically
knowledgeable than their scientist contemporaries. To paraphrase
Augustine, Christ taught his disciples Christianity, not
biology.
|8.2.05 @ 12:20PM|#
jennifer,
Oh, and the Justinian Code allows for a forty-day window. The
Catholic Church followed this practice until the 19th century, when
they again followed the practice of secular governments and
condemned abortions in all stages of development.
|8.2.05 @ 12:21PM|#
one cannot expect churchmen to be more scientifically
knowledgeable than their scientist contemporaries
Actually, I'd think people with a direct info pipeline to God
Almighty should be a little more knowledgeable about things than
mere mortals stumbling about through trial and error. Unless said
God is--well, I'm not going to further discriminate against the
religious. As this thread so amply demonstrated, y'all have
suffered enough.
|8.2.05 @ 12:21PM|#
Phil,
It's kind of hard to kill, by abortion, a child whose head has
emerged from the mother's vagina. Occam's razor seems to be cutting
against you there.
|8.2.05 @ 12:23PM|#
crimethink,
You'd think that a revealed religion would know this distinction
from the start! This is simply more evidence that a belief in
God(s) is farcical. :)
|8.2.05 @ 12:25PM|#
jennifer,
Anyway, its safe to say that the Catholic Church's position has
been all over the place on the matter. Hey, this is the same church
which blessed the import of African slaves in the Americas after
all.
|8.2.05 @ 12:26PM|#
Jennifer,
Few if any Catholics, and even fewer Catholic leaders, claim to
have a direct info line to God. The teaching on abortion comes not
from a special revelation to an 18th century churchman, but from
the confluence of Scripture and Greek philosophical thought that
informs almost all of Catholic teaching.
|8.2.05 @ 12:38PM|#
Phil,
It's kind of hard to kill, by abortion, a child whose head has
emerged from the mother's vagina. Occam's razor seems to be cutting
against you there.
Stick with me here, crimethink. Connect the dots:
1. It is the belief of Judaism, in the 20th century, even knowing
what they do about fetal development, that an undelivered fetus is
only a "partial life" and that it is allowable to kill it under
certain circumstances.
2. They believed this same thing 2,000 years ago.
3. Those same people were the authors of The Didache.
4. It then follows that the authors of The Didache -- a group of
men who helped found the Catholic Church -- believed there were
circumstances under which it was allowable to kill a child in the
womb.
5. It is, therefore, a bald-faced lie to state that both the
Catholic Church and Judaism have a 2,000 year tradition of
considering abortion "an abominable crime."
B.D.|8.2.05 @ 12:43PM|#
I saw that. He thinks it should be held with the same merit as
Evolution. If that's the case, then I'm supporting the Flying
Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.venganza.org/
|8.2.05 @ 12:49PM|#
Phil,
The dots don't connect. The text says nothing about circumstances.
First, the term "child" must cover at least a subset of unborn
human life, since it forbids killing a child by abortion. One could
argue that they only intended "child" to refer to an unborn human
life that had passed a certain point of development, but that is
not the argument you're making. In any case, the text makes no
exceptions for external circumstances that the mother finds herself
in.
|8.2.05 @ 12:57PM|#
Of course, I'm letting myself be distracted from my main
point.
Even if one concedes that the Catholic Church is completely
arbitrary and inconsistent in deciding under what, if any,
circumstances abortion is right or wrong, it still has a right to
expect its members to follow its teachings.
If any Catholic has a problem with the teaching on abortion,
they're totally free to leave the Church. I have more respect for a
person who does that, as many have, than for someone who tries to
have it both ways. God knows why anyone would want to remain a
member of an organization which rails against their beliefs.
|8.2.05 @ 1:04PM|#
crimethink,
As the term abortion has obviously changed in meaning over time,
your criticism of Phil's line of thinking isn't very
convincing.
Further, in light of its changing definition, clearly this
statement needs a heck of a lot revision and a few caveats:
...despite their opposition to the 2000-year-old teaching of
the Church, not even including the further milennia of its Jewish
roots, that abortion is an abominable crime.
...it still has a right to expect its members to follow its
teachings.
There is no "right" involved here. Perhaps you should cast outside
the lines of "rights" talk.
|8.2.05 @ 1:07PM|#
Hakluyt,
Are you saying that at some point in time, the term "abortion"
referred to killing an already-born child?
|8.2.05 @ 1:08PM|#
it still has a right to expect its members to follow its
teachings
You could just as easily say that tithe-paying churchmembers have
the right to expect its church to reflect its beliefs.
|8.2.05 @ 1:18PM|#
You could just as easily say that tithe-paying churchmembers
have the right to expect its church to reflect its
beliefs.
Yes, and you would be right in saying that. Catholics are free to
find a non-Catholic church that reflects their beliefs, and pay
tithes to it instead of the Catholic Church. But those who do this
are only kidding themselves if they still consider themselves
Catholics.
|8.2.05 @ 1:24PM|#
Well, Crimethink, maybe they're just Catholics ahead of the curve. Like the people, pre-Vatican II, who wanted church services to be in their native language. Or the people who prayed for Queen Isabella to intervene on their behalf, BEFORE Isabella became an official saint with the ability to help the prayerful. Or the guy who went to Hell for eating a bologna sandwich the Friday before the no-meat-on-Friday rule was rescinded.
|8.2.05 @ 1:30PM|#
From Anti-Theocrat's at 11:14am link, above, ..."I think
that part of education is to expose people to different schools of
thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought
to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."...
Let's hear it for teaching the Hindu, Native American, and other
Animist creation stories.
|8.2.05 @ 1:32PM|#
crimethink,
I wouldn't find it surprising, no. Words change in their meaning
over time after all.
Jennifer,
The Catholic Church has always had a big tent approach until it
doesn't like the idea. They vacillate back and forth over time. Its
further indication that the Catholic Church is a human
creation.
|8.2.05 @ 1:38PM|#
One could argue that they only intended "child" to refer to
an unborn human life that had passed a certain point of
development, but that is not the argument you're making.
Actually, that was exactly the argument I was making at first. I
modified it slightly, but it still covers part of the point: Both
the Jews, 2,000 years ago, and the early Catholic Church, nearly
2,000 years ago, clearly had circumstances under which the killing
of an unborn child was permissible. So to refer to some 2,000 year
history of condemning abortion by either body is pure nonsense.
MP|8.2.05 @ 1:52PM|#
God knows why anyone would want to remain a member of an
organization which rails against their beliefs.
You mean like small government people who register and vote
Republican? People make compromises all the time with respect to
their personal moral compasses and the organizations with which
they associate with. Expecting 100% complicity (particularly when
the target is constantly moving) is absurd.
|8.2.05 @ 2:47PM|#
"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.
-- The Didache (Teachings of the 12 Apostles), chapter 2"
The Didache was probably written in the first century AD, but certainly no later than the second. Not quite 2000 years old, but pretty old nonetheless.
What's scary here is crimethink appears to believe, by quibbling over the exact wording of the above, that a 1st Century AD text was written in modern English, and admits no possibility of mistranslation or bias on the part of any translator(s).
|8.2.05 @ 7:15PM|#
Don't worry, O Criticizer of Crimethink. Soon enough we'll take
care of Crimethink and Thoreau and other such despised members of
this oppressed belief system.
We'll put them all in concentration camps. Only we won't call them
"camps;" we'll call them "spiritual retreats." And these "retreats"
will all be in the woods or by a lake or some other such place with
a lot of bugs; at night they shall be forced to build campfires, to
attract every bug within a ten-mile radius, and they'll all be
given acoustic guitars and forced to sing "Kum By Yah" until their
supposed souls completely SHATTER from it all.
And there will be nothing for them to eat except scorched
S'mores.
|8.2.05 @ 11:20PM|#
Wow, I'm getting lots of attention here.
CIAI,
I'm sorry if I frighten you. But far from quibbling over wording,
I'm the one supporting the plain meaning of the text as a whole. If
you think the translation I quoted is a bad one, you're free to
google "didache" and find oodles of translations online. The
several that I looked at all use the word "abortion", which is the
important one.
Hakluyt,
I'm not an etymologist, but I highly doubt that the English word
"abortion" has ever covered the killing of an already-born infant.
The word appears to derive from the Latin abortio, a
stopping or an ending. In this case, the stopping or ending of a
pregnancy.
And as CIAI mentioned, of course, the original language of the
Didache was not English but koine Greek. Which means that 1900
years have not passed since "abortion" was coined to describe what
the Didache was forbidding; rather, at most a few decades have
passed since that word was used to translate the Greek. So there's
not much language evolution to distort the meaning of the text as
translated.
|8.2.05 @ 11:27PM|#
Jennifer,
That's not funny -- I'm a survivor of those camps -- or as you
euphemistically call them, "retreats". I only escaped by bribing
the guards with a S'more which was miraculously shaped like the
Virgin Mary.
|8.3.05 @ 12:41AM|#
Jennifer: Well, Crimethink, maybe they're just Catholics
ahead of the curve.
Communists were once ahead of the curve.
Nazis were once ahead of the curve.
Disco fans were once ahead of the curve.
But it is intriguing that pro-choice people characterize themselves
as being "ahead of the curve," when their viewpoint is based on a
model of fetal development which is decades out of date. While
science cannot of course make moral decisions and value judgements
for us, it can certainly inform them.
And as I stated before, the beliefs of early and medieval
Christianity, Judaism, and classical philosophers, regarding
abortion, were all informed by the "seed" model of conception. It
was originally believed that semen was a human-seed (hence the
name) which simply lodged itself in the womb to receive nourishment
and grow, much like a plant seed does in the ground. This model
does not provide any stark dividing line separating semen from
child, so the treatment of abortion using it is bound to be fuzzy,
if only for lack of information.
And yet, when Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in
Roe, he deferred to the Stoics, who opined that birth was
the best dividing line. Of course, no Stoic could possibly have
known anything of the true mechanism of conception, centuries
before it was discovered. And those who support his decision repeat
his strategy again and again.
In the years since 1973, embryology has discovered that even early
in pregnancy, the unborn entity is buzzing with activity and
development, hardly a "lump of cells". By the time pregnancy can
even be detected, the kernel of the central nervous system is
already active, and the proto-heart is already beating. Seeing
these developments, those invested in the pro-choice side stick
their heads further in the sand, depending less and less on the
strength of their case, and more and more on money, raw power, and
above all public apathy. But those things last but for an instant
in the life of the cosmos; the truth lasts forever.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245