———

The announcement of Justice John Paul Stevens’ retirement has led to a flurry of media activity around the beltway. The news has been greeted with praise from his colleagues on the court along with nearly everyone else in the political establishment, including his ideological opponents. But perhaps the more important question left to us is: what will happen next? Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog thinks that it will be a “pretty efficient” process that will ultimately lead to the irony of a more conservative court under a Democratic president. Jack Balkin agrees that Obama’s first priority in will likely be to avoid expending too much political capital in a midterm election year; however, he goes on to offer what he views as a potential second priority:

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens posing for photographs at the Supreme Court, September 29, 2009. UPI/Gary Fabiano/POOL Photo via Newscom Content © 2010 Newscom

Second, and equally important, President Obama will nominate someone who is likely to sustain the President’s policies while he is in office, first, on the issues he cares about most at the time and, secondarily, the issues necessary to keep his political coalition together … [These might include] support for the constitutionality of the recently passed health care bill, preservation of Roe v. Wade (as modified by Casey), and support for robust (but not necessarily unilateral) Presidential power in surveillance, detention, military commission, rendition, and other war on terror issues.

This will present an interesting scenario according to Michael Kinsley at The Atlantic. He wonders if the Republican’s desire to expend political capital isn’t also at question. Noting their care to avoid the term “conservative” in the discussions surrounding Stevens’ replacement, he raises questions as to where their priorities might lie in the upcoming nomination process:

Since they don’t control Congress or the White House, conservatives are avoiding the term “conservative” as they gird for battle over a replacement for Justice Stevens. Instead they say “mainstream” or “centrist.” But this resolves none of the contradictions in their general position on Supreme Court nominees. Do they want someone who respects precedent, or someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Do they want an “originalist,” or do they want to poison President Obama’s health care victory? Do they really believe in “judicial restraint,” or do they want “activism” in their own favor?

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight seems to agree:

The risk to Republicans is that they overplay their hand, either by filibustering someone whom the public deems to be reasonable and qualified (which I think they will not do: they can read the polls as well as everyone else) or by basically looking like a bunch of jerks (more risk there: the Senate Republicans are not the most charismatic bunch, although those on the Judiciary Committee are savvier than most).

Yet he downplays the possibility of any real drama in the nomination hearings:

In general, I’d tend to tamp down expectations surrounding the potential political fallout from Barack Obama’s nomination of another Supreme Court justice later this year, which he’ll have to do in the wake of Justice Stevens’ retirement. As important as the Supreme Court is, Congressional hearings are still Congressional hearings, and are for the most part inside-the-beltway affairs that won’t penetrate into the zeitgeist in a year where most voters have things like the economy on their minds.

Perhaps that is why Matthew Yglesias offers a seemingly gloomy assessment from the politically progressive point of view:

Note that evaluating the nominee on the merits doesn’t seem to be an option. I think it’s pretty clear that there’s no political reason to think a moderate nominee in the Breyer/Sotomayor/Ginsburg vein would actually fare any easier than someone from a more robustly progressive tradition. The decision about whether or not to launch a no-holds-barred campaign against the nominee will be undertaken for other reasons. But as best I can tell, Barack Obama (and many other leading Democrats) don’t actually think that reviving old-school judicial liberalism would be a desirable outcome. That, rather than any political calculus, seems likely to me to drive a moderate pick.

All of this ultimately serves to raise the question of the how the Supreme Court nomination process has evolved over the years. Peter Grier, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, explains how the confirmation hearing is a relatively new invention on the U.S. political scene. Dating back to Eisenhower’s nomination of John Harlan in the 1950’s, the hearings gradually shifted their focus from questions of personal shortcoming to the partisan grilling of nominees over judicial philosophy and ideological positions. This shift was pointedly marked by the nomination of Robert Bork by President Reagan in 1987, who ultimately failed to be approved by the Senate in a vote of 58-42. This has led to what Grier describes as the current climate with regards to the national judiciary:

But since Bork both parties have learned that there is possible advantage in trying to portray nominees as people who are out of the nation’s political mainstream. Interest groups have discovered that there is lots of money to be raised and attention to be gained by leading the fight against nominees with whom they disagree.

Meanwhile, Washington itself has become more and more partisan.

What’s that led to? A situation in which almost every Supreme Court nomination will be deemed “controversial” by a president’s political opponents.

And if Grier’s logic holds true in the wake of Justice Stevens’ retirement, are we doomed to another bitter nomination bout in spite of our earlier commentators’ perhaps unwarranted optimism? Given the experience of then nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I find little room for optimism, especially in the ever growing hostility of this midterm election year. The “hateful heckling” of health care reform protesters, the ”nuclear option” debate in the Senate, the fallout surrounding Senator Evan Bayh’s retirement – all of these and countless other examples leave me with little hope for a tempered nomination battle, much less a debate marked by civil discussion. It’s past time for calmer heads to prevail on issues of such national significance, but I fear that until we as citizens hold our legislators and leaders, our political action groups and non-profits more accountable for the dialogue in which they engage, we’re not going to see any measurable change in the climate or the discourse for this nomination.

In his dissenting opinion to Bush v. Gore in which the 2000 presidential election was declared for George W. Bush, Justice Stevens ended with these final words:

One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

It is a shame that the retirement of such an outstanding Supreme Court Justice will likely stand as yet another moment where we as a nation fail to see that we all lose because we have set aside the ability to respectfully dissent.

———

For an overview of the media coverage of Justice John Paul Steven’s retirement visit the following links:

• Tuesday round-up – part one | SCOTUSblog
• Monday round-up – part one | SCOTUSblog
• Examining Justice Stevens and Discussion of Court’s Makeup, Future | ACSblog

———

Cross posted at Dialogic.

———

These past few weeks and months have been interesting on the political scene. The national picture has witnessed massive legislative and foreign policy shifts that will likely mark significant changes in how we understand ourselves as a nation. And while this may turn out to be a good thing, in the short run it may leave us feeling uncertain, unsettled, and perhaps even confused. For some, this is already the case, and the results have become chaotic.

The recent reports of violence should be quite disturbing to us as Christians. Vandalism of congressional offices and private homes – even a potential anthrax threat to a U.S. Representative – mark a rise in what can only be described as hateful acts. While I am sympathetic to the idea that many people have great concerns about the changing political landscape (meaning most specifically health care reform), I find myself in disbelief every time I turn to the news and receive yet another report of violence in response to a Congressional bill.

All of this has only served to turn me back to my bible and reread the words and stories of Jesus. I’m reminded of that great commandment, where Jesus reminds us to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength – and the equally important second part, to love neighbor as self. It seems that this should speak with clarity to the present situation: we’re not always going to agree, but we are all children of God, and we need to recognize that in one another.

However, as I was contemplating this even further, I was struck by another aspect of Jesus – his numerous associations with tax collectors. There are perhaps no better examples of someone becoming that dreaded “other” than a fellow Hebrew who would “turn traitor” and work for the Roman occupational government. Yet even here, Jesus defied the going discourse of distrust and made friends with tax collectors. (Matthew and Zaccheus come quickly to mind.)

It occurs to me that we are in a period of cultural instability and political change, and this is becoming uncomfortable for everyone, both for and against. And as a religious leader, I’m reminded on a daily basis that this climate of hostility and sometimes even hatred calls for us as Christians to live out our faith principles even as we live out our political principles. We don’t all have to agree with one another about health care, or immigration reform, or whatever the issue of the day may be, but we are called to disagree with one another in a manner that respects our common dignity and humanity.

Living the hope of resurrection,

Clint

———

Senate Bill 1965 was born on February 1, 2010 in the Oklahoma State Senate to Senator Harry Coates.  It passed from this life around April 4, 2010 in the House Judiciary Committee with numerous family members by its side.

The Oklahoma State Senate in session. (Photo by Becky J. McCray/Flickr, used under Creative Commons 2.0)

Senate Bill “SB” 1965 entered the world as an Open Meetings and Records Act, filled with hope for providing transparency in government and the freeing of information.  Showing great potential, “SB” was quickly enrolled in the Senate Education Committee where it excelled in athletics, maturing into an “An Act relating to schools; creating the Task Force on the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association.”  With a bright future before it, SB 1965 graduated, eagerly looking forward to life after education.

However, this new life proved difficult for SB 1965.  Shortly after graduation, it entered into a period of turmoil where it questioned its identity and future.  “SB” was taken in by Senator Steve Russell, a quixotic former military commander who longed to joust the menacing windmills of Federal hate crimes legislation.  With his own child, Senate Bill 2165, dying an agonizing death in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell convinced SB 1965 to give up its promising athletic career and join his dubious quest to protect freedom of religion and speech for privileged, straight, peoples.  Looking more and more like Russell’s now deceased bill, SB 1965 emerged from its midlife crisis set on perpetuating injustice in Oklahoma.*

Yet it was in this new chapter of life in the Oklahoma House of Representatives that Senate Bill 1965 finally found redemption.  Coming under the tutelage of Representative Mike Shelton, SB 1965 acknowledged its misspent youth and retired to the obscurity of the Judiciary Committee, where it remained until death on or about the 4^th of April.  Senate Bill 1965 was preceded in death by his adoptive brother, Senate Bill 2165.  It is survived by a host of other Senate Bills that legitimately serve the good of the people of Oklahoma.

No memorial services are planned.  In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to The Equality Network.

———

* The original bill was modified on the Senate Floor by a substitute bill offered by Senator Russell and voted do pass by a count of 39 ayes and 6 nos.  I stand in admiration of the courage of six senators who voted against this unjust bill: Tom Adelson, Johnnie Crutchfield, Richard Lerblance, Andrew Rice, John Sparks, and Jim Wilson.

———

Related Posts:

• SB 1965: Destroying Dialogue, Destroying Lives  |  Xenia Institute
• Hate Crimes in Oklahoma: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell  |  Xenia Institute

The language of violence always presages violence. I watched it in war after war from Latin America to the Balkans. The impoverishment of a working class and the snuffing out of hope and opportunity always produce angry mobs ready to kill and be killed. A bankrupt, liberal elite, which proves ineffectual against the rich and the criminal, always gets swept aside, in times of economic collapse, before thugs and demagogues emerge to play to the passions of the crowd. I have seen this drama. I know each act. I know how it ends. I have heard it in other tongues in other lands. I recognize the same stock characters, the buffoons, charlatans and fools, the same confused crowds and the same impotent and despised liberal class that deserves the hatred it engenders.

“We are ruled not by two parties but one party,” Cynthia McKinney, who ran for president on the Green Party ticket, told me. “It is the party of money and war. Our country has been hijacked. And we have to take the country away from those who have hijacked it. The only question now is whose revolution gets funded.”

Read the rest of the article.

———
Last week the Pentagon made a not entirely unexpected move to raise the standards for prosecution of military personnel under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Not surprisingly, voices within the military immediately began creating a stir about issues of conscience and freedom of religion, using the same tired logic surrounding hate crimes legislation here in Oklahoma. This was paralleled by the logistical argument enunciated by Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz while testifying before Congress, in which he asked that legislators not “perturb the force” in time of war. While I have a difficult time understanding how the removal of over 13,000 service members under DADT since its inception doesn’t qualify as perturbing the force, especially considering that over 800 of those removed from service had critical skills such as Arabic, I find it even more frustrating that those opposed to removing this unjust policy continue to trot out the same collection of unfounded arguments. Ruth Marcus at TruthDig appears to share my frustrations:

WASHINGTON - MARCH 18: People sign their names during a rally in support of a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don t Tell' policy March 18, 2010 at the Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Perturb the force? Of course, the same arguments could be—in fact, they were—made about racial integration. It is particularly infuriating that the generals would invoke the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an excuse for not lifting the ban. If anything, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been an impediment to the military during these operations. In an era of stop-loss recalls because forces have been stretched so thin, thousands of service members have been discharged because of their sexuality.

Yet the problem with these arguments is that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is far more than a logistical matter. Even though Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen is correct to be “troubled” by a policy that “forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” the issues that he and the Congress are failing to consider are the personal ramifications of this policy. Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point grad and Arabic linguist who was discharged for outing himself, points out how DADT cuts much deeper than military politics:

“What’s inhumane about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the fact that soldiers have to lie. It’s the only federal policy that enforces shame, particularly because these are soldiers willing to risk their lives to protect America … The fundamental reason to get rid of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is that it sacrifices, violates and compromises the integrity of all soldiers, not just gay soldiers.”

However, we must acknowledge that the problems created by this policy extend far beyond the scope of the military. The social ramifications of DADT speak directly to the heart of the discourse over sexuality in the national culture. Bradford Schmidt at Technorati sheds light on the broader issue:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not just an invasion into the private thoughts and lives of American servicemen and women, it’s a federal policy that defines the relative worth of human beings based on how they live their private lives and whom they chose to love … It is absolutely indefensible that a time when human beings are still berated, insulted, discriminated against, and beaten because of their sexuality, there are laws on the books that reaffirm in the minds of bigots everywhere that gay men and women have less value than straight men and women.

This devaluing of human life carries real freight in the social and cultural discourse. It functions like a double edged sword that cuts the LGBTQIA community in both directions. While codifying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provides a legal justification for bigotry and hatred, it also stabs at the heart of community and dialogue. As Leyla Farah at Cause+Effect points out, the ability to share one’s stories is critical:

At a basic level, it could be argued that our community only exists as a function of our personal, shared stories. LGBT people grow up, often with a vague feeling that we’re somehow different, but we’re not sure why. We come out, often in turmoil and fear. We live and love, often in the face of real danger and hardship.

It’s these shared experiences, and our varied and personal stories about our journeys through them, that form the foundation of our community. We don’t share gender or skin color or geography or language. There’s nothing visibly apparent that binds us together. It is the telling of our stories – and our ability to find ourselves in each others experiences – that makes us who we are.

When we can neither ask about, nor tell, our stories we are effectively cut off from community. We are robbed of our ability to connect with one another. We are left isolated and vulnerable.

Whether President Obama addresses the military policy or not … the fact remains that LGBT people must have the right, and the ability, to tell our stories before we can truly make progress.

This is a sad reminder that the power of discourse belongs to those who control the discourse. As Farah reminds us, people of varying sexual orientations are simply seeking safe space in which to create communities where stories might be shared and identity might be explored. Unfortunately, the hetero majority continues to use policies like DADT to enforce the arbitrary binaries of “gay” and “straight,” and in doing so freezes not only the discourse between both communities, but the internal discourse within these communities as well. Simply unclenching the fist of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t good enough. Now we have to extend the open hand of dialogue in mutuality and respect.

Oklahoma currently has tough, good laws that include hate crimes laws. Any murder or brutal assault is hateful. That is the problem with singling out something more with this federal law.  I believe this legislation far exceeds the powers of government over states as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  I am also very concerned that this loosely defined and ill-conceived legislation could be used to target people’s belief, freedom to associate in groups, right to assemble on issues, as well as target people’s right to free speech.

The Oklahoma State Capitol building. (Photo by Daniel Mayer, used under Creative Commons 3.0)

What Russell fails to mention is that Oklahoma’s current statute does not include a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity as motivations for a hate crime.  In his rush to defend the privileges of the empowered, Senator Russell runs roughshod over the basic human rights of members of the LGBTQIA community.  As a commenter on my previous post pointed out, the failure to prosecute the perpetrators of hate crimes creates an environment of fear that robs all potential victims of an ideologically motivated crime of their very human dignity.  The Leadership Conference provides another devastating example of the non-prosecution of hate crimes in their publication, Confronting the New Face of Hate: Hate Crimes in America 2009:

In Greenville, South Carolina on May 21, 2007, Sean Kennedy, a gay man, died of injuries sustained after he was attacked outside a bar. While making derogatory comments regarding Kennedy’s sexual orientation, the assailant fatally beat and punched him until he fell, hitting his head on the pavement. The killer was originally charged with murder, but his charge was reduced to involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended to three years with credit for the seven months he had already served. He was also ordered to attend both anger management and drug/alcohol management classes. No hate crime was charged as South Carolina is one of only five states (along with Arkansas, Georgia, Wyoming, and Indiana) that do not have a penalty-enhancement hate crime law.

To defend the rights of so-called straight people when the lives of LGBTQIA people are at stake is a slap at true justice.  Yet the manner in which Russell proposes to deny human dignity as he defends the privilege of empowered people adds further insult to injury.  While he quibbles over freedom of speech and expression, victims of hate crimes are left to wonder if those oft quoted words; “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” hold any meaning for them at all.  If we are to take that declaration seriously and acknowledge that all humans are created equally, then these tactics of shutting people out of the discussion about their own sexuality and/or identity are no longer acceptable nor morally defensible.  SB 1965 is just another method by which freedom of speech is used to avoid the relationality of dialogue and uphold the privileges of the oppressors while destroying the lives of the oppressed.

So it’s time for Oklahomans who are in favor of dignity and dialogue, relationship and justice, to stand together and oppose this bill.  Through some legislative trickery (which I hope to blog more about later), this proposed legislation moved very rapidly through the Senate and has already made its way into the House.  After being second read, SB 1965 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it must pass a committee vote before it can be debated before the entire House of Representatives.  The Equality Network has already established a website where you can email the membership of the Judiciary committee and urge them to vote against SB 1965.  However, with the next scheduled meeting of the Judiciary committee on Monday, March 29 and no posted  agenda for which bills will be considered,* now is the time to make the most of your voice and snail mail an old fashioned letter to the members of this committee.  Repeated activist workshops have stressed the value of sending actual letters, and I would encourage you to join me in doing so.  I’m including a link to a copy of my letter to Representative McCullough to offer you some thoughts as to how you might address the subject in your own correspondence and a listing (below) of the representatives on the Judiciary committee along with their mailing addresses and phone numbers.  You might also find helpful talking points and examples at the aforementioned email link from The Equality Network as well as at an email advocacy website set up by Human Rights Campaign that may offer insights into composing your own letter or email.

If you don’t write a letter, send an email.  If you don’t send an email, consider making a phone call.  Legislation like Senate Bill 1965 is destroying dialogue and it will destroy lives.  It’s time for those of us who support community, restorative justice, and true equality to be in one voice in opposing hurtful and hate-filled legislation like SB 1965.  When we fail to stand in opposition to injustice and in solidarity with its victims, our inaction becomes our indictment.  I hope that you’ll join me in speaking against this bill that is bad for all people, and bad for Oklahoma.

* At the time of writing this post, no committee agenda had been set for the upcoming meeting of the House Judiciary Committee.

———

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

———

The following table includes all of the members of the House Judiciary Committee.  For your information, their party affiliation has been included in parenthesis following their names, but this is not actually part of their mailing addresses.  I’m also linking each representative to her/his page at the House website.

WASHINGTON - APRIL 12 (2007): Judy Shepard, mother of hate crime victim Matthew Shepard, wipes away tears during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

An Act relating to criminal investigations … which relates to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation; limiting disclosure of certain investigative information; prohibiting state employees from assisting a federal agency under certain circumstances.

What the summary fails to shed light on is the specific “circumstances” under which state employees are prohibited from disclosing information to or otherwise assisting federal law enforcement agencies. However, the blogosphere has rushed to the rescue with posts like these from the GLAA Forum, Unfinished Lives, and Metro Star News representing just a small sampling of web response. Comment has also come in from traditional media, with the editorial staff at the Tulsa World joining the conversation:

The bill apparently does not seek to repeal federal or state hate crimes protections in place that are based on race, national origin, religion or disability. But it excludes hate crimes perpetrated on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, two categories added to a federal hate crimes law last fall.

It also sets a chilling precedent … that Oklahoma will only enforce certain federal laws and cooperate only with selected federal agencies.

This editorial prompted a response from Senator Russell himself, offering arguments about free speech in addition to his original claims of protecting religious freedoms. However, Edge Boston appears to have spelled it out more clearly than the Senator himself:

Russell also worried that The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was signed into law by President Obama last year, might be used to prosecute Christians who speak out against gays because of their religious convictions. Though the measure includes guarantees designed to protect First Amendment freedoms, opponents have blasted the Act for creating a new class of “thought crimes,” and worried that the law would be used to suppress religious expression, including readings of anti-gay Biblical passages.

While one dissenting opinion argues that an error in this bill may opt Oklahoma out of federal intimidation statutes instead,* the intention behind Senator Russell’s bill is clear – to obstruct the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes against LGBTQI persons. If this intention becomes law, whether through passage of this bill or another, Oklahoma will effectively become the first don’t ask, don’t tell state. When it comes to hate crimes, Federal agencies need not ask, and state law enforcement better not tell.

*The Matthew Shepard Act and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually codified in 18 USC 249, not 18 USC 245 as presented in this bill.

This article cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

Bayh has always been shall we say a frustrating sort. Never a profile in courage.

This marks perhaps the kindest response from the liberal blogosphere to Evan Bayh’s decision to leave the Senate.  Michael Tomasky’s thoughts from across the pond (The Guardian is published in the United Kingdom) at least gives Bayh the benefit of the doubt as to his future.  Perhaps because there is talk that his hasty exit might open the way to a Republican takeover of his seat on November, the conservative blogs have been somewhat kinder.  John Stossel offers a positive view of the move based on Bayh’s remarks that he could create more jobs in private industry.  This drew a strong response from Matthew Yglesias:

The popularity of this sort of rhetoric among small-government types mostly illustrates how small-brained they are. It should be both obvious and uncontroversial to observe that the policy environment shaped by congress has an impact on the welfare of the American people that far exceeds that of most businesses. This is equally true whether or not you’re skeptical of the value of activist government.

James Fallows follows a similar argument in questioning the timing and suddenness of Bayh’s exit:

If he really cared about his Indiana constituents and their problems through that time, great! But if so, how can he walk away with this kind of careless disregard about whether, in the style of his departure, he is smashing up things that had said were important to him. If, on the other hand, these issues and people never really mattered that much, and public life had been a kind of popularity contest — well, that may be true of a lot of politicians, but they don’t like to reveal it quite this bluntly.

However, even the tone of these arguments seems civil compared to some of the other tongue lashings that have been handed out at Evan Bayh’s expense:

The Pernicious Influence Of Lefty Blogs  |  Ta-Nehisi Coates

To double down, it’s not so much that he’s “centrist,” or “moderate,” it’s that his centrism has no real policy core. I don’t know how you support the Bush tax-cuts and style yourself a deficit hawk. Policy-wise, there’s nothing “leftist” about being against the Iraq War. But politically-speaking, the anti-war folks were caricatured as a bunch of hippies who don’t understand national security.

…

But so often with “centrist” Dems, I feel like I’m just watching people take positions so that they can claim to be moderate/independent because it sounds good.

The Emptiness of Evan Bayh  |  Ross Douthat

America needs politicians who stake out interesting, politically-courageous positions on important policy questions. What it doesn’t need is politicians who occupy the safest possible ground on the great issues of the day, shift slightly left or slightly right depending on the state of public opinion, and then get congratulated by the press for being so independent-minded.

Evan Bayh  |  Matthew Yglesias

Simply put: He’s an immoral person who conducts his affairs in public life with a callous disregard for the impact of his decisions on human welfare. He’s sad he’s not going to be president? He doesn’t like liberal activists? He finds senate life annoying? Well, boo-hoo. We all shed a tear.

Bayh Low  |  Jonathon Chait

This was just a completely unremarkable man who, had he not been the handsome son of a famous politician, would never in a million years have been a Senator.

If you’ve been a regular reader of my work, you know that I’m typically not this heavy on the quotations, and if you’re one to follow the links, then you might notice that I’ve been very particular in my editing of the quotes that I have shared.  All of this is to highlight the point: dialogue on the political landscape has all but come to a standstill.

With the TEA Party movement apparently gaining momentum (or at least media coverage), this isn’t a particularly astute observation.  Yet I think that Bayh’s retirement has opened the door to understanding that this isn’t just a right-wing phenomenon.  The critiques leveled at Bayh’s centrism, whether warranted or not, still indicate a “do-nothingness” on the part of political moderates who have passed over opportunities to try and foster compromise and move government forward.  (Anyone remember Henry Clay from their U.S. history courses?)  The venom spewed in Bayh’s direction, again, whether warranted or not, has exposed the frustration on the left and its willingness to resort to verbal broadsides as well.  Frankly, we’re all failing to rise to the occasion when it comes addressing the issues we face.

I doubt that I can sum it up any better than Daniel Schorr’s commentary for All Things Considered:

That [Bayh’s decision] will have electoral consequences goes without saying. But the sullen mood of America goes beyond shifting party loyalties. Many Americans seem close to rejecting the whole machinery of government that Evan Bayh found wanting. What happens when the people turn their back on their government is a phenomenon that this democracy has yet to experience.

I can only pray that we find a way to reclaim our role as citizens who share this economic and political space that we call the United States of America.

——–

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

One speaker, for example, was Larry Lewis, interim pastor of the Centralia [First] Baptist Church. Suggesting he spoke for “Centralia’s faith community,” he said the ordinances violated the separation of church and state and would, among other things, give the city’s stamp of approval to those lifestyles. “This would be divisive when this community needs healing.”

This prompted me to look into the proposed ordinances for myself, and I was disappointed but not surprised to discover that the language of the bills included very specific exemptions for churches and other religious institutions and organizations.  (I write more about this at my own blog.)  The claim that the bills violated the separation clause was nothing more than political grandstanding designed to provide a supposedly “legal” cover for the public moralizing of an exclusivist religious perspective.  In actuality, this no-holds-barred attempt by so-called Christian interests to codify their own morality proved to be the greater threat to the separation clause.  In instances such as this, the dual meaning of “separation of church and state” is too often forgotten.  The first amendment not only protects religious institutions from encroachment by the state, but protects the state, and by extension its citizens, from the encroachment of religion.

I discovered that I wasn’t alone in this new year’s concern.  As I wrote about the moral tyranny of religion in local politics, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wondered about similar issues at the national level.  They recently posted a report offering a look at President Obama’s record on this issue after one year.  Their findings aren’t nearly as gleeful as those on the Religious Right might have you believe:

There’s no denying that when Obama took office, many who stand guard on the church-state wall breathed a sigh of relief. The previous eight years had been difficult ones, and there was a sense that things had to get better because they really couldn’t get any worse.

…

But that doesn’t mean everything Obama has done has pleased advocates of church-state separation. Indeed, the Obama record on church and state is mixed. One year later, it’s a good time to step back and assess his record so far.

Lifting up Obama’s decision to open federal funding for stem cell research and inclusion of minority and non-religious voices in his speeches and public functions as highlights, this report goes on to address areas of concern.  Noting the President’s rather ambiguous record regarding appointments to federal judgeships, including the appointment of Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the report goes on to raise real questions with regard to the administration’s positions concerning faith-based initiatives, school voucher programs, and church/state cases being pursued by the Department of Justice.  While I don’t necessarily share these concerns to the same extent that Americans United might, I do think they make legitimate points about Obama’s record on the separation between religion and politics.

Yet, as important as these collisions between religion and politics are, I’m left with a troubling question: If we are to honor the non/religious pluralism of our contemporary society, how do we effectively work to promote the common good?  And perhaps even more importantly, how do we even determine a common good?  While it should be apparent that I support the liberal (lowercase “L”) ideal of tolerance, I’m not blind to its problems.  Ethicist and scholar David Hollenbach perhaps describes them best:

In public life, all encompassing understandings of the common good must be subordinated to the importance of tolerance.  A live-and-let-live ethos thus leads to what John Dewey once called an “eclipse of the public.”  The good that can be achieved in the shared domain of public life is hidden from view as protection of individual, private well-being becomes the center of normative concern.

(David Hollenbach, The Common God and Christian Ethics, 10)

In an age of religious and nonreligious sectarianism, competing political visions, and outright discord and distrust, how do we seek out a vision for the shared good?  The health care debate that spanned the entirety of 2009 really exemplifies the difficulties we face.  The cries of nationalized health care and “death panels” drowned out the voices of reason for a rational public discussion.  And to make matters worse, this non-debate effectively silenced discussions on other important issues such as the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, apprehension, detainment and trial of suspected terrorists, and the plight of the poor, which extends to far more basic concerns than health care.

It is my hope for 2010 that we as a nation will work to find some means for engaging in national discussions that don’t automatically degenerate into shouting matches and propaganda wars.  Yet looking back at 2009, I’m left to wonder if we can actually summon the ethical wherewithal to make that hope a reality.

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

One speaker, for example, was Larry Lewis, interim pastor of the Centralia Baptist Church. Suggesting he spoke for “Centralia’s faith community,” he said the ordinances violated the separation of church and state and would, among other things, give the city’s stamp of approval to those lifestyles. “This would be divisive when this community needs healing?”

[Aldermen] Orsini and Parmeley tried to explain; citing language in the bill and its supporting ordinance that specifically excluded religious organizations. He suggested the bill could lead to immorality and wanted to know if it would affect hiring practices for churches and religious schools. “No,” said Orsini, “you can discriminate to your heart’s content.” That led Lewis onto another tangent through which seemed to equate gay and transgender lifestyles with prostitution. “Would I be required to rent out a prostitute?” Orsini assured him he would not.

Perhaps a moment of explanation is due before I move on to my response.  For one, I wholeheartedly support the passing of the three proposed changes to the city ordinances.  The ordinances in question included updating the Unlawful Housing Practices, Unlawful Employment Practices, and Unlawful Public Accommodation Practices; Chapters 8.1, 7.1, and 7.2 of City Code for all of those interested.  However, I found myself most concerned by the arguments offered by Rev. Larry Lewis, the interim pastor of First Baptist in Centralia.  But before I go on to post my letter to the editor (which was published in this last week’s edition of the paper), I should note that I’m acquainted with Rev. Lewis.  My father has farmed land owned by the Lewis family and I’ve met him a couple of times along the way.  And this isn’t the first time I’ve been on the opposite side of the issues with Larry.  In 1992 I rather matter-of-factly informed him, as only a 12-year-old can do, that the Toronto Blue Jays were going to fly in a poop on the heads of his Atlanta Braves in the World Series.  But before I digress too far, here’s my response to his concerns about the first amendment violations within these proposed (and sadly defeated) city ordinances:

To the Editor,

It is with a sense of sadness that I write in regard to the recent failure of the city to pass nondiscrimination ordinances with regard to sexual orientation and gender identification.  However, I write to specifically challenge Rev. Larry Lewis’ assertion that these ordinances would violate the separation of church and state.  Having read the language of the bills, including specific exemptions for religious or sectarian organizations or corporations, his claims that these ordinances violate first amendment separations are simply inconsistent with their language.  In fact, I would go a step further to argue that his actions more closely border on violating the separation of church and state.  By claiming to speak for “Centralia’s faith community,” he asks the city to implicitly enforce a certain religious moral perspective.  Just as the separation clause in the U.S. Constitution serves to protect religious institutions from government interference, it also serves to protect the state from the moral tyranny of religion; a tyranny all too often unchecked.

Yet in spite of our differences, Rev. Lewis and I do share two things in common.  We are both religious leaders and we both have ties to the Centralia community.  I just find it unfortunate when we can’t agree that the same Jesus who fought discrimination by associating with the poor and unemployed, lepers, widows, sinners, tax collectors, drunkards, and other societal outcasts 2000 years ago wouldn’t also fight discrimination and division today.

Respectfully,

Clint Collins

Pastor, First Christian Church of Tahlequah, Oklahoma

While it may appear that I stuck it to the good reverend pretty hard, the language of the proposed changes to city code supports my position.  The changes to the code concerning Unlawful Housing Practices appear to have no impact on religious organizations and corporations as far as I can tell.  However, the changes concerning Unlawful Employment Practices, and Unlawful Public Accommodation Practices do have ramifications for religious institutions.  Yet, as I read the language of these documents, they contain very specific exemptions that prevent the state from dictating to the church on these matters.  The changes to the Chapter 7.1 covering Unlawful Employment Practices contains a small, but clear exemption found in the definitions under Section 7.1-1 pertaining to definitions:

EMPLOYER: Any person employing six or more persons within the state of Missouri, and any person directly acting in the interest of an employer, but does not include corporations or associations owned and operated by religious or sectarian groups.

This definition can be found on page 41 of the Agenda for the Board of Aldermen for December 21.

Likewise, the changes to Chapter 7.2 covering Unlawful Public Accommodation Practices also offer clear exemptions.  In fact, this one appears to be wide enough to drive a large truck through.  Here is the exemption Section 7.2-3, subsection C:

C.. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private club, a place of accommodation owned by or operated on behalf of a religious corporation, association or society, or other establishment which is not in fact open to the public, unless the facilities of such establishments are made available to the customers or patrons of a place of public accommodation.

This exemption can be found on page 48 of the Agenda for the Board of Aldermen for December 21.

I think the saddest thing about the whole affair is that my own fears appear to be true.  The fact that the separation of church and state clause serves to protect not only the church from government interference, but the government and the people from oppressive religious overreach has been lost on many in this country.  Too quickly we have forgotten the mythic history of our nation that this country was founded on the principles that the state could not enforce religious doctrines or impose pietistic moralities upon individuals.  In instances like this, in my own humble little hometown of Centralia, we continue to hide behind half of the first amendment separation clause in order to impose our own rules upon one another.

If this isn’t the oppression of empire that Jesus actively opposed in his life and teachings, then I’m sad to say that after years of seminary training, I don’t know what is.