That Pesky Pledge
A recent article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate presents a first hand account of the arguments in the Supreme Court hearings regarding the "Under God", phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. There have been other opinion pieces covering the issue (William Safire from the New York Times) and I can't really add anything to the argument. However this post is related to a discussion Benton and I had the other day.

It's hard to argue against the premise that the Founders were religious men. I think that its evident in their writing and the documents they authored that we point to with reverence at times. However I also think it is hard to argue with the premise that they were also practical. I think that the majority of these men, and in the Slate article there is a specific reference to Thomas Jefferson removing a statement concerning God from the Virginia Bill of Rights, realized that the documents they were crafting were not solely for their time but for their children and grandchildren’s time. As a result I believe that they took great pains to render a document that would be usable for years after their deaths.

Now when it comes to the actions of our current leaders, I am not so convinced of their concept of the long term. What popular issues have they (an their predecessors) acted upon to satisfy a popular whim without thinking of the long-term consequences? Prohibition is a fine example. In some cases legislature defined court sentencing have had unforeseen negative consequences and to some Americans are in fact unfair and should be repealed. There are parallels in business, Total Quality Management caught on in Japan after the Second World War allowing Japanese industry to out pace American industry until the same techniques and methods were applied in both places. Conversely the irrational financial activities of the Japanese banking sector looked wonderful in the 1980s'. However the decade long recession and financial difficulties in Japan can attributed to these policies and the inability of the Japanese government to resolve these problems through reform.

So I would like to point out something simple and folksy to Congress and our esteemed state legislatures:

Good men and Evil men are at times hard to separate by their words. It's their actions that define them to history.

We as a people do not need to have religious affirming statements in our expression of government. God, whichever one you believe or disbelieve in, will be manifest in your actions or the lack thereof. It is through behavior and performance that the true effect of religion, morality, charity, and liberty should be felt in our government. Its easy to say one thing and do another, its harder to be consistent in word and deed. I think if people dwelt more on the long-term effects of their actions and less on the short-term ego whim of the electorate we would all be better of, both today and tomorrow.

UPDATE: An posting at Marginal Revolution (thanks to Cronaca) has an interesting history of the Pledge. Read it and make your own decisions. The pictures of children saluting the flag are truly bizzare in light of the evils wrought by Facism. Read the first Comment to the posting at Cronaca for some more history about our Pledge.

- posted by Samuel @ 10:39 PM

 
Judicial Nominations
A recent posting by Kevin Drum (formerly Calpundit) of The Washington Monthly blog has an interesting point about the recent furor over judicial nominations. I direct you to two posts, March 24, 2004 and October 27, 2003. There has been a great deal of rancor in the media, mountains of righteous indignation from members of Congress (both sides) and our various partisan talking headsm and a lot of obscuring information and blame handed out for subverting the Constitution and the "advise and consent" protocols.

I think both posts and the surrounding media make it obvious that BOTH sides are at fault in this issue. However if the "Blue Slip" information is correct the first stone thrown in the RECENT argument seems to have come from Orrin Hatch. It seems that prior to 1995 (Republicans regain control of Congress) the nomination process required two written objections to the validation of the President's choice for a particular position on the bench. The rule reverts to two objections with the election of GW Bush. Then when the Democrats regain Senate control (briefly) in 2001 with the defection of Jeffords the rule is for one written objection again. With the defeat of the Democrats majority (through elections and death) in the Senate the rule again reverts to two objections. As a result the Democrats threaten and follow through with a filibuster. The precedent for judicial filibusters comes to us from the late Republican Senator Strom Thurmond. He took issue with Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice to replace Earl Warren on the grounds that he would be too liberal on civil rights issues. The end result is the recent recess appointments which as Kevin Drum points out quite possibly violate he intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

I would expect informed readers to check this information out for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. I am troubled by the actions of both sides, however I am most angry with the group who cries foul when behavior they have employed in the past is used against them.
- posted by Samuel @ 4:31 PM

 
Farewell to the Invisible Adjunct
Seems like the Invisible Adjunct has decided to give up blogging. I read this blog on an almost daily basis and greatly enjoyed the issues, commentary, and discussion. I found the discussions stimulating and informative, especially during my search for a tenure-track faculty position. The loss of this blog is a true shame. If IA was half as good at history as blogging the loss to academia is profound.

- posted by Samuel @ 11:31 PM

 
Marriage, Homosexuals, and Congress
Up to this point I have in personal discussions stated that the whole brouhaha over the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples is a lot of hot air over nothing. It gives the farther right something to lament and the farther left something to champion, while leaving the rest of the country to fluctuates in the middle as seen in the polls. I would suppose that these fluctuations are due mainly to the questions being asked, as in all the bluster there has been virtually no new information given to support either side. I'll delve into this issue in part now.

Marriage in my understanding is a religiously constructed event that solemnizes the agreement of two people "to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." I have always felt that most marriages (and that includes my marriage) were religious in nature. Even the practice of common law marriage is religious since common law descends from English common law where the King/Queen was the highest political and religious authority on earth. That leads me to question of what the marriages of those outside a religious or common law standpoint really are worth. What, for example, if you are an atheist? Is your marriage null in the eyes of those who would say that marriage is sacred and precious? I have yet to hear this subject broached in an intelligent secular manner.

Lets look at some of the arguments for gay marriage:

(1) Equality of rights and responsibilities, decisions, finances, and privilege.
(2) Access to insurance benefits given to heterosexual couple.

From a secular viewpoint these arguments should resonate with people who understand the concepts of freedom and equality. I am stunned when members of Congress of African lineage decry the correlation of gay marriage and the civil rights movement. I am stunned because I can think of NO other event that so adequately corresponds. IF its only about equality, and I tend to believe this, then there is no justification for the forbidding of gay marriage under our current political construct. From a religious viewpoint these arguments should also resonate. Why is if equitable to exclude a group of people from a public feature just because you disagree with some of their views.

Now the arguments against it:

(1) Its immoral and offensive.
(2) It will damage and demean heterosexual marriage.
(3) It is an assault on the American way of life and our political beliefs.

From a secular viewpoint these arguments are not as clear as the pro-marriage ones. Immorality is a slippery thing. What is immoral to one may or may not be immoral to another. Its the purpose of laws and regulations to forbid those acts that are criminal (theft, murder, fraud, sexual abuse, rape). However moral distaste at a particular lifestyle, belief structure, or physical condition has no place in the law and is rightly shunned by our legal system. I would kindly remind everyone that while homosexuality is immoral and offensive to some is to no longer an illegal act in and of itself. However there are situations where speech and behavior are regulated under the guise of offensive activities. I'll remind everyone about the ongoing insanity regarding Janet Jackson's breast and the firestorm that it started. Another example is that of Howard Stern. I'll leave this issue to Jeff Jarvis who eloquently and passionately comments on it on a daily basis.

As to the argument that gay participation in marriage will damage heterosexual marriage I can find no real explanation as to exactly how it will damage marriage. If a marriage is between two people and their god then how can someone else's marriage interfere? Does the marriage of atheist demean my marriage? Does common law marriage? I'll wait to see if someone presents reasonable evidence to validate his point before making final judgment. However my current thoughts are that this argument is total bunk.

Lastly the issue of gay marriage striking a blow at the American way of life. I have seen this argument trotted out against immigrants, the environment, taxes, and other sundry issues. My personal feeling regarding such an argument is that it is used as a scare tactic in lieu of a real argument. Hugh Hewitt presents and covers this argument in a recent article in the online Weekly Standard. Now I read Hugh and I while not always in accord with him have never felt him to be so far offbase. His argument that gay marriage strikes at the traditional concept of the "consent of the governed" to determine how they are governed strikes me as an argument only worthy of an old school segregationist. He makes a good point that NO state legislature has authorized gay marriage in the 228 years of our existence as a country. However over half of states have moved to make it forbidden by statue and code. It was just such a statue that was at question in Massachusetts. What troubles me the most and was echoing in my head while reading his article was the simple phrase "the tyranny of the majority". If as he suggest the will of the governed is only valid where the majority agrees then segregation, "Jim Crow", and other forms of racial discrimination were fine and by his arguments against gay marriage should have been enshrined in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself feared the hostile rule of the majority and the potential abuse of the minority. This is evident in his writings and political philosophy. Hewitt's article seems to insinuate that the actual decision should be made to satisfy the will of the emotional masses, which is a feature of the Jacksonian facet of American politics. The interested reader should check out the article concerning Jacksonian political thought by Walter Russel Mead at The National Interest for a description and discussion of where it differs from Jeffersonian thought. I can find little merit in Hewitt's argument. Never has the US Constitution been written to exclude a sector of the population from a personal activity that doesn't infringe on other protected rights. Unfortunately state constitutions can't be admired in the same manner. It is this fact and its inherent equality troubles that the Massachusettes Supreme Court was addressing in their ruling. Nothing dictates that other states need feel the same way until the Supreme Court decides that to be the case.

Now you may be asking, "What does Samuel really think?" Hold on to your seats, I ernestly feel that the government has NO business regulating marriage. I have no problem with the government regulating the financial and responsibility features of the joining of two people. Its just that marriage has such religious overtones that I can't understand how it can be made to function in the present manner under the current interpretation First Amendment. Its the use of the work marriage that bothers me most. If the only arguments against gay marriage lie in the words used to describe it then I am DEEPLY troubled by any constitutional change related to the definition of marriage. President Bush himself uses religious imagery when he discusses "protecting" marriage. It all sounds like a certain group doesn't like the use of a word to describe an act because of its religious connotations. To remedy this I propose that the government (local, state, and federal) discard the word marriage, and the requirements they have enacted therein. I think the example of that county in Oregon is exact what needs to happen. Let the word marriage belong to the religious. Let all secular marriages activities become civil unions in the eyes of the government. You can be joined by a judge or the captain of a ship without the blessing of a minister, priest, rabbi, or imam. Why therefore should there need to be a sanctification of that civil function. All marriage bestows on the heterosexual in this life is a certain joining of rights and property. How does the gender of the participants factor into that? I think it is this facet of the current discussion, that the majority can't separate the word marriage from its religious overtones, that prevents people from seeing what gay marriage really means. If the argument was purely secular then the fact that civil unions = marriage is a no brainier and there would be no problem.
- posted by Samuel @ 7:46 PM

 
Sam I Am
Well since Ben and Sid have posted a little about themselves I assume I should in turn. I am an academic chemical engineer nearing the completion of my PhD. In July I will be moving from Tennessee to take a faculty position in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania .

My professional areas of focus are engineering, the environment, and academia. I have had a deep interest in politics and the discourse thereof for some time. It wasn't until I stumbled upon Instapundit , the Volokh Conspiracy, Samizdata, and Crooked Timber that I realized that groups of people might be able to have a political issue based discourse at a distance.

I hope that people who come to our blog will notice that we all diverge on views in some areas while we coalesce regarding others. Its my view that this is much closer to the reality of the American body politic, despite all the bluster of the hard-left/right pundits. It is the purpose of this blog to provide a commentary based in that reality.
- posted by Samuel @ 1:04 PM