Archive for November, 2009

Mixed reaction to Swiss banning of minarets

Monday, November 30th, 2009

I like religion to be personal and private. That goes for all religions. As someone who likes religion to be kept out of my field of vision when I am out in the world, I have a deep and innate feeling of approval for the recent decision by the Swiss populace to ban construction of new minarets, which are heavily associated with Islam today.

However, as a champion of freedom to practice as people wish, I feel also a tinge of sadness at the Swiss decision. This seeming contradiction is not difficult for me to internalize. I think of Voltaire, who didn’t say,

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

(more…)

Something serious is amiss in Minnesota

Monday, November 30th, 2009

A recent article by the Star Tribune, State economist: A thorn in governor’s philosophy, puts the Minnesota state economist at odd with the governor. While Governor Tim Pawlenty is an only-spending-cuts-will-save-us type Republican, at least lately, the state economist, Tom Stinson, argues that there is no single solution (e.g., neither tax hikes nor spending cuts alone) to the money woes in Minnesota. In fact, Mr Stinson appears to support President Barack Obama‘s economic stimulus efforts, which Pawlenty has had nothing but ill will toward.

I am not sure whether we have had enough time to know if the stimulus has worked, I am certain that I will give the state economist, who has been doing this work for Minnesota for some twenty years, benefit of the doubt. Which is more than Pawlenty appears willing to do, because Stinson’s forecasts do not fall in line with the governor’s national political aspirations.

From the article:

As the state’s budget deficit ballooned into billions of dollars, the Republican governor blamed DFLers, who he says would rather raise taxes than rein in spending. In the process, Pawlenty has barely mentioned Stinson and rarely talks to him.

(more…)

Source of Law Is Not Religion

Friday, November 20th, 2009

What is the source of law? Many people are taught, or come to conclude on their own, that religion is the source of law. This misguided belief is probably more widespread in monotheistic religions, which tend to have as their godhead some sort of divine lawgiver, than in pantheistic or maybe even polytheistic religions.

The religion-as-source-of-law is particularly common among Americans who believe the U.S. is a Christian nation and espouse all sorts of Judeo-Christian nonsense.1

My own hypothesis is that religion and law may have evolved in proximity, and indeed very closely, but by no means does law come from religion and by no account is religion required for law, or ethics, or morality. In my hypothesis, law and religion don’t evolve together; rather, law and ritual evolve together, and it is ritual and not law that is tied to religion. (more…)

Rebuttal to Hamilton and No Possible Secular Purpose to Stupak

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Professor and legal commentator Marci Hamilton posted an article on why she believes1 the Stupak amendment to the recently-passed health care bill in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. Her theory is, in part, that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause. The basis for this claim, according to Hamilton, is that the “anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment’s favor have been the Catholic Bishops.” The Establishment Clause does not care whether this or that movement is religious.

We care about whether the legislation is religious. This religious-movement bit is a red herring.
(more…)

New Arguments Disallowed on Appeal

Friday, November 20th, 2009

When you lose at trial, you may be tempted to raise any new argument you can think of on appeal. The desire to do so is natural but not permitted under the rules of appellate procedure. If you do not raise an argument at trial, then you waive that argument.

Court’s summary:

Civil case – ERISA. Neither ERISA nor the terms of the plan precluded defendant from calculating the plaintiffs’ opening cash balances using the 8% discount rate set out in Appendix A of the plan rather than the Internal Revenue Code statutory discount rate; as a result, the district court erred in awarding plaintiffs damages based on its holding that the IRC discount rate should have been used; plaintiffs’ cross-appeal issue on the date of the plan conversion was moot; argument concerning dismissal of plaintiff’s ERISA age discrimination claim was waived as their appeal presented an entirely new argument on the issue. (emphasis added)

Case Info

Sunder v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan
U.S. Court of Appeals Case Nos: 07-3485, 07-3593, 07-3771, 08-1910 and 08-2616
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri – St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Hansen, Author, with Murphy and Bye, Circuit Judges]

The Psalm 109:8 “prayer” for Obama

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

I recently have seen some right-wingers or Christian fundies promoting a “prayer” for President Obama using the Tanakh scripture psalm 109:8. This “prayer”, if it can even be called that, is a plea that “may his days be few; may another take his office.”

Psalm 109:8 is being offered as a legitimate source for entreaty to the god of the fundies, because they apparently think that the psalmist was asking his god for the same result. I suspect that many of these misguided fundies are reading the KJV, and not only because the KJV is the preferred bible of most fundies I’ve met.
(more…)

Unpublished Civil Decisions for 17 Nov 2009

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Summaries of the Unpublished Decisions in the Minnesota Court of Appeals for November 17, 2009

(more…)

Separation of Church and State

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Protecting the Churches, Too

I just wanted to write this thought out. It’s not new here, as some of the earliest Americans in favor of church-state separation were Baptist congregations, but the idea is important and needs to be remembered.

The purpose of the First Amendment, and the principles of the wall of separation between church and state, is not only to protect individuals from state-sponsored religious entanglement. The purpose is also to protect the churches from the government, and (more…)

What Is the Nature of Truth?

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Or: Is Truth Absolute or Relative?

Truth has qualities of both absoluteness and relativity. Truth is simply “what is.” And falsity is simply “what is not.” Is “what is” absolute? Is “what is” relative? To both questions, we must answer: Yes.

What is, depends. Is depends on time, place, manner, condition, and countless factors that are often fleeting.
(more…)

What If Atheism Kills Religion?

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Or, A Nostalgic Look Back on the Usefulness of Religion

An atheist should not think of spirituality as useless any more than a capitalist should think of agriculture as useless. There are evolutionary reasons why religion developed. If religion and spirituality were biologically disadvantageous, shouldn’t they have been selected out? If there were no or little advantage, then should we have reason to think that religion would have developed at all? To some extent, I’m sure we could imagine religion developing without benefit; after all, reality television has developed without any obvious advantage to our species.

Whether any given sect is important, or even whether certain beliefs were material or immaterial, I’m sure is highly debatable. Consider that humans have ranged from worshipping nature and parts of nature to incarnate deities to invisible all-powerful sky beings to space aliens. What is consistent is probably not the content of the beliefs, but the plain fact of or existence of beliefs among our species in the first place.
(more…)