Author: Julia

Separation of church & state

NPR is running a four part special on Islam in Europe. Today’s report focuses on a French law banning headscarves in public schools, and the broader issue of whether or not France can integrate its large Muslim population. I heard only the first few minutes of the story, but I find it disturbing that any government is still grappling with issues like these — here and abroad.

I am not religious. I have spiritual leanings and even hold a belief in something greater, but organized religion holds little for me. I do, however, recognize that it is important to many people, and I recognize that organized religion can be a powerful force for good, both on an individual level and on a societal level. It can also be a powerful oppressor, and the need for a separation of church and state is certainly great.

Forcing anyone to practice something in which they do not believe is a recipe for violent conflict. But so is prohibiting those practices which do not interfere with others’ lives.

In America, we deal with these issues, too. Our Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We are in the strange polarized position of prohibiting religion in some public institutions — like voluntary school prayer — and respecting it in others — like banning gay marriage. What we have done in some cases respects the establishment of religious beliefs so ingrained in our society that we have a hard time separating them, while in other cases we prohibit the peaceful and free expression of religion. We seem to be eliminating religion only where its influence is obvious, without regard for the effect of the practice.

Throughout history, religious conflicts have been fiercest when a religious group feels that its ability to practice is being oppressed. As we hear over and over, Islam is not a violent religion. As we hear less often, any religion, including Islam, may become violent if its members are not permitted to practice peacefully. Study the roots of militant Islam in nearly any country in which it exists to see that the results of governments becoming afraid of moderate Muslims and cracking down, causing those moderates to become radical and sometimes violent.

This is not an excuse for violence. There have been peaceful resistances to religious oppression, and such a resistance is always preferable.

It is frustrating, though, that after hundreds of years of the same patterns, so many of us are unable to recognize that our fear of Islam, or any other religion, will only serve to exacerbate the rift.

Permitting headscarves in public schools will not threaten France’s secularism; banning them will alienate a large portion of their population, and increase the likelihood of violent conflict.

Here at home we need to reevaluate our own attitudes about the relationship between religion and government. Let’s start by asking not how marriage should be defined, but whether or not it serves a legitimate secular purpose that couldn’t be better served in another way. Let’s ask if prohibiting all religion in state-funded schools is really in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, or if perhaps it respects the establishment of no religion over other belief systems. In our quest to keep church and state separate, the two have become inordinately tangled. The questions aren’t easy, but they don’t have to be this hard.

Peace Crane

Perhaps it’s naive of me, but just the fact that someone had the idea to drop a hundred million cranes for peace makes me smile. It is completely understandable that it didn’t do any good, and may actually have insulted some of the intended recipients. But the very fact that someone was able to step outside of the conflict to conceive of the plan is heartening. This kind of thing needs to be more than just an empty gesture, but I’d like to believe that the goodwill behind the cranes can translate into a political good will as well.

Privacy? What privacy?

Ah, the government. We’ve now got proposals to keep federal records of college students and a refusal by the Bush administration to work on privacy protection for the microchip passports-to-be.

In a bit of good news, the Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. This, of course, doesn’t mean that they’re supporting ruling, but are declining to hear the case because the folks who filed suit have no standing to do so. If you think about this, you’ll find that no one could possibly have standing to sue to prevent gay marriage. This is true for a number of things, really. Seems silly to criminalize things that don’t harm anyone enough to give them standing before the Supreme Court.

They aren’t perfect, but I kind of like this court. I hate to see what Bush is going to do to it.

Drugs & alcohol

Interesting article in the LA Times about potential disagreement among conservatives as social conservatives and free-market conservatives duke it out. The focus here is on two cases about to be heard by the Supreme Court, one dealing with medical marijuana, the other with the direct shipping of wine to consumers, but it’s certainly an issue with broader implications.

Based on past actions of this court, it looks like the free-market conservatives have the edge here. But as this article points out, in the big cases (eg, US vs Lopez, overturning a federal law prohibiting possession of a gun on school property) it’s been traditionally conservative issues which benefit from restricted federal power. Now, it’s traditionally liberal issues which stand to benefit.

We’ll see.

You say you want a revolution

Last night Johanna and I went to see The Motorcycle Diaries at Midtown Cinema. The movie is based on the book of the same name by Che Guevara and Traveling with Che Guevara: The Making of a Revolutionary by Alberto Granado, chronicling their eight-month journey through Latin America in 1951-52. I wanted to see it because I’m always up for a good travel movie; I didn’t know anything about Che Guevara, and have always had disdain for anyone wearing a t-shirt with his face on it.

The movie, of course, idealizes him. There is no mention of the racism, homophobia, or anti-Semitism apparently present in his book. It barely mentions Guevara’s later life, and makes absolutely no value judgment about it. It does, however, show the seeds of his thinking. It captures some of Latin America’s troubling aspects without being heavyhanded, or trying to tell the viewer what to think.

But this would be an enjoyable movie even if Guevara had not gone on to change the world (for better or worse). The friendship between the two men is heartwarming. The scenery is stunning. The adventures are enviable but sometimes harrowing. The whole thing is done subtly enough that it feels like a glimpse into an important time in someone’s life, and you can take from it what you will.

I was reminded that, however deeply buried, at some point, there was a glimmer of good beneath the communist revolutions. I hate being reminded of that.

Which means The Motorcycle Diaries is probably worth seeing.

California Researchin’

The New York Times published an interesting article about California’s new stem cell initiative. I’ve been really excited to see a state doing something like this as a result of federal inaction, but this article draws attention to the potential problems that arise when any government body does anything. Well, the scope of the article isn’t that broad, but it’s what it’s got me thinking about.

I would like to see stem cell research being conducted. My first reaction to anything, though, is that I don’t want to see government spending money, especially on things a large number of people object to on moral grounds (I know, I know, this is not a robust argument). This kind of research apparently doesn’t happen with private funds, though, so it does seem like it’s going to take government dollars. A state ballot initiative is, I think, a great way to address the issue. States can decide whether or not they want to spend money on it, those who do have the opportunity to attract scientists and companies to work on it; those who don’t can pay less taxes.

But it also seems like the further the decision making process is removed from those funding the program (IE, the taxpayers), the less responsible the spending will be. The NYT article makes it sound like the initiative includes safeguards to prevent abuse of the funds, but, of course, only time will tell.

Anyway, I always hear fiscal conservatives and libertarians (including myself) argue that less government intervention leads to more innovation. It doesn’t seem to be true in this case, though — perhaps partly because the drug industry is so well established and profitable. The possibilities seem great enough that this is the kind of thing that should be pursued *somehow*, and it’s frustrating to me that there is no easy answer as to how.

The other white meat

The Heritage Foundation has published a list of the “earmarks” included in the spending bill passed over the weekend.

Some highlights:

$3,000,000 – Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, New York
$3,000,000 – Grape Genomics Research Center, Davis, California
$25,000 – Develop curriculum to study mariachi music, Clark County School District, Nevada
$150,000 – Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program, Lady B Ranch, California
$99,000 – Train students in the motorsports industry, Patrick Henry Community College
$1,500,000 – Transport naturally chilled water from Lake Ontario to Lake Onondaga
$100,000 – “No Workshops, No Jumpshots,” Virginia
$1,750,000 – Parents Anonymous
$470,000 – Swine and other animal waste management research, North Carolina
$300,000 – Wool research

…And the list goes on and on.

We should be very proud that Congress is working so hard for us.

Perhaps more alarmingly, the same bill also included a clause allowing hospitals and insurance companies to refuse to perform abortions. Even though many states already have laws allowing individual doctors to refuse, they felt it was important to allow entire institutions to decline. I believe that individual doctors should always have the right to not participate, and that there should be some protection for religious hospitals to not have to offer abortions (although perhaps not those receiving government money, which probably leaves very few). However, this clause (the wording of which I am afraid I cannot find) goes way beyond that. According to Salon, the Senate will hold a vote to repeal the clause in April. One can only hope that, on its own, support for the measure will wane.

A little bit more

Clive Thompson at Slate has played JFK Reloaded so that we don’t have to. It’s a decent article.

Also, in some much needed feel-good news:

A pod of dolphins circled protectively around four people swimming 300 feet off a New Zealand beach to fend off an attack by a great white shark, according to a report Tuesday by the New Zealand Press Association. The four were swimming when several dolphins began herding them by doing tight circles around them. When one swimmer, Rob Howes, tried to drift away, one of the larger dolphins herded him back. It was then that Howes spotted a 9-foot great white shark swimming toward the pod. “I just recoiled. It was only about 2 meters away from me, the water was crystal clear and it was as clear as the nose on my face,” Howes said. “They had corralled us to protect us.” If the report is accurate — and a spokeswoman for the environmental group Orca Research says the behavior fits these marine mammals — then dolphins are treating us with a lot more respect than we’re treating them these days.
— Tony Long

It would have felt better without the dig at the end, but still, pretty cool.