BackTalker1

BackTalking is what always got me in trouble throughout life, so it would seem to be a good theme for a first blog. It's also part of the title of my public access show.

A Letter from Jefferson

To Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello, February 10, 1814

DEAR SIR,

-- In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has even rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject. I now enclose you the extract from these entries which I promised. They were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. This must be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder than historical facts and principles will warrant. Accept with them the assurances of my great esteem and respect.

 

Common-place Book.

873. In Quare imp. in C. B. 34, H. 6, fo. 38, the def. Br. of Lincoln pleads that the church of the pl. became void by the death of the incumbent, that the pl. and J. S. each pretending a right, presented two several clerks; that the church being thus rendered litigious, he was not obliged, by the Ecclesiastical law to admit either, until an inquisition de jure patronatus, in the ecclesiastical court: that, by the same law, this inquisition was to be at the suit of either claimant, and was not ex-officio to be instituted by the bishop, and at his proper costs; that neither party had desired such an inquisition; that six months passed whereon it belonged to him of right to present as on a lapse, which he had done. The pl. demurred. A question was, How far the Ecclesiastical law was to be respected in this matter by the common law court? and Prisot C. 3, in the course of his argument uses this expression, "A tiels leis que ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence, car ces common ley sur quel touts manners leis sont fondes: et auxy, sin, nous sumus obliges de conustre nostre ley; et, sin, si poit apperer or a nous que lievesque ad fait comme un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ces adjuger bon autrement nemy," &c. It does not appear that judgment was given. Y. B. ubi supra. S. C. Fitzh. abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch mistakes this in the following manner: "To such laws of the church as have warrant in Holy Scripture, our law giveth credence," and cites the above case, and the words of Prisot on the margin. Finch's law. B. 1, ch. 3, published 1613. Here we find "ancien scripture" converted into "Holy Scripture," whereas it can only mean the ancient written laws of the church. It cannot mean the Scriptures, 1, because the "ancien scripture" must then be understood to mean the "Old Testament" or Bible, in opposition to the "New Testament," and to the exclusion of that, which would be absurd and contrary to the wish of those |P1323|p1 who cite this passage to prove that the Scriptures, or Christianity, is a part of the common law. 2. Because Prisot says, "Ceo [est] common ley, sur quel touts manners leis sont fondes." Now, it is true that the ecclesiastical law, so far as admitted in England, derives its authority from the common law. But it would not be true that the Scriptures so derive their authority. 3. The whole case and arguments show that the question was how far the Ecclesiastical law in general should be respected in a common law court. And in Bro. abr. of this case, Littleton says, "Les juges del common ley prendra conusans quid est lax ecclesiae, vel admiralitatis, et trujus modi." 4. Because the particular part of the Ecclesiastical law then in question, to wit, the right of the patron to present to his advowson, was not founded on the law of God, but subject to the modification of the lawgiver, and so could not introduce any such general position as Finch pretends. Yet Wingate [in 1658] thinks proper to erect this false quotation into a maxim of the common law, expressing it in the very words of Finch, but citing Prisot, wing. max. 3. Next comes Sheppard, [in 1675,] who states it in the same words of Finch, and quotes the Year-Book, Finch and Wingate. 3. Shepp. abr. tit. Religion. In the case of the King v. Taylor, Sir Matthew Hale lays it down in these words, "Christianity is parcel of the laws of England." 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority, resting it on his own, which was good in all cases in which his mind received no bias from his bigotry, his superstitions, his visions above sorceries, demons, &c. The power of these over him is exemplified in his hanging of the witches. So strong was this doctrine become in 1728, by additions and repetitions from one another, that in the case of the King v. Woolston, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law, saying it had been so settled in Taylor's case, ante 2, stra. 834; therefore, Wood, in his Institute, lays it down that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law, and cites Strange ubi supra. Wood 409. And Blackstone [about 1763] repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that "Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing Ventris and Strange ubi supra. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that "The essential |P1324|p1 principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cities no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law.

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Prisot's, or on one another, or nobody. Thus Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate also; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the court in Woolston's case cite Hale; Wood cites Woolston's case; Blackstone that and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. In the earlier ages of the law, as in the year-books, for instance, we do not expect much recurrence to authorities by the judges, because in those days there were few or none such made public. But in latter times we take no judge's word for what the law is, further than he is warranted by the authorities he appeals to. His decision may bind the unfortunate individual who happens to be the particular subject of it; but it cannot alter the law. Though the common law may be termed "Lex non Scripta," yet the same Hale tells us "when I call those parts of our laws Leges non Scriptae, I do not mean as if those laws were only oral, or communicated from the former ages to the latter merely by word. For all those laws have their several monuments in writing, whereby they are transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon lose all kind of certainty. They are for the most part extant in records of pleas, proceedings, and judgments, in books of reports and judicial decisions, in tractates of learned men's arguments and opinions, preserved from ancient times and still extant in writing." Hale's H. c. d. 22. Authorities for what is common law may therefore be as well cited, as for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no better instance of the necessity of holding the judges and writers to a declaration of their authorities than the present; where we detect them endeavoring to make law where they found none, and to submit us at one stroke to a whole system, no particle of which has its foundation in the common law. For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn from the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives us a very complete and scientific treatise of the whole body of the common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry III., a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about fore gives us the former in its ultimate state. Bracton, too, was an ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to inform us of the adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had any such adoption ever taken place. But no word of his, which intimates anything like it, has ever been cited. Fleta and Britton, who wrote in the succeeding reign (of Edward I.), are equally silent. So also is Glanvil, an earlier writer than any of them, (viz.: temp. H. 2,) but his subject perhaps might not have led him to mention it. Justice Fortescue Aland, who possessed more Saxon learning than all the judges and writers before mentioned put together, places this subject on more limited ground. Speaking of the laws of the Saxon kings, he says, "the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." Preface to Fortescue Aland's reports, xvii. Had he proposed to state with more minuteness how much of the scriptures had been made a part of the common law, he might have added that in the laws of Alfred, where he found the ten commandments, two or three other chapters of Exodus are copied almost verbatim. But the adoption of a part proves rather a rejection of the rest, as municipal law. We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them. An eminent Spanish physician affirmed that the lancet had slain more men than the sword. Doctor Sangrado, on the contrary, affirmed that with plentiful bleedings, and draughts of warm water, every disease was to be cured. The common law protects both opinions, but enacts neither into law. See post. 879.

879. Howard, in his Contumes Anglo-Normandes, 1.87, notices the falsification of the laws of Alfred, by prefixing to them four chapters of the Jewish law, to wit: the 20th, 21st, 22d and 23d chapters of Exodus, to which he might have added the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, v. 23, and precepts from other parts of the scripture. These he calls a hors d'oeuvre of some pious copyist. This awkward monkish fabrication makes the preface to Alfred's genuine laws stand in the body of the work, and the very words of Alfred himself prove the fraud; for he declares, in that preface, that he has collected these laws from those of Ina, of Offa, Aethelbert and his ancestors, saying nothing of any of them being taken from the Scriptures. It is still more certainly proved by the inconsistencies it occasions. For example, the Jewish legislator Exodus xxi. 12, 13, 14, (copied by the Pseudo Alfred [symbol omitted] 13,) makes murder, with the Jews, death. But Alfred himself, Le. xxvi., punishes it by a fine only, called a Weregild, proportioned to the condition of the person killed. It is remarkable that Hume (append. 1 to his History) examining this article of the laws of Alfred, without perceiving the fraud, puzzles himself with accounting for the inconsistency it had introduced. To strike a pregnant woman so that she die is death by Exodus, xxi. 22, 23, and Pseud. Alfr. 18; but by the laws of Alfred ix., pays a Weregild for both woman and child. To smite out an eye, or a tooth, Exod. xxi. 24-27. Pseud. Alfr. 19, 20, if of a servant by his master, is freedom to the servant; in every other case retaliation. But by Alfr. Le. xl. a fixed indemnification is paid. Theft of an ox, or a sheep, by the Jewish law, Exod. xxii. 1, was repaid five-fold for the ox and four-fold for the sheep; by the Pseudograph 24, the ox double, the sheep four-fold; but by Alfred Le. xvi., he who stole a cow and a calf was to repay the worth of the cow and 401 for the calf. Goring by an ox was the death of the ox, and the flesh not to be eaten. Exod. xxi. 28. Pseud. Alfr. 21 by Alfred Le. xxiv., the wounded person had the ox. The Pseudograph makes municipal laws of the ten commandments, 1-10, regulates concubinage, 12, makes it death to strike or to curse father or mother, 14, 15, gives an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, strife for strife, 19; sells the thief to repay his theft, 24; obliges the fornicator to marry the woman he has lain with, 29; forbids interest on money, 35; makes the laws of bailment, 28, very different from what Lord Holt delivers in Coggs v. Bernard, ante 92, and what Sir William Jones tells us they were; and punishes witchcraft with death, 30, which Sir Matthew Hale, 1 H. P. C. B. 1, ch. 33, declares was not a felony before the Stat. 1, Jac. 12. It was under that statute, and not this forgery, that he hung Rose Cullendar and Amy Duny, 16 Car. 2, (1662,) on whose trial he declared "that there were such creatures as witches he made no doubt at all; for first the Scripture had affirmed so much, secondly the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons, and such hath been the judgment of this kingdom, as appears by that act of Parliament which hath provided punishment proportionable to the quality of the offence." And we must certainly allow greater weight to this position that "it was no felony till James' Statute," laid down deliberately in his H. P. C., a work which he wrote to be printed, finished, and transcribed for the press in his life time, than to the hasty scripture that "at common law witchcraft was punished with death as heresy, by writ de Heretico Comburendo" in his Methodical Summary of the P. C. p. 6, a work "not intended for the press, not fitted for it, and which he declared himself he had never read over since it was written;" Pref. Unless we understand his meaning in that to be that witchcraft could not be punished at common law as witchcraft, but as heresy. In either sense, however, it is a denial of this pretended law of Alfred. Now, all men of reading know that these pretended laws of homicide, concubinage, theft, retaliation, compulsory marriage, usury, bailment, and others which might have been cited, from the Pseudograph, were never the laws of England, not even in Alfred's time; and of course that it is a forgery. Yet palpable as it must be to every lawyer, the English judges have piously avoided lifting the veil under which it was shrouded. In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.

 

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 31, 2005 20:10 | link | comments |

Sky Taxi

 

Waiting for the Sky Taxi

March 26, 2005
By TygrBright - Democratic Underground

Oh, those wacky Rapture-maniacs.

How we love to mock them, with their bizarre "countdown clocks" and their tacky literature and their oh-so-mockable bumper stickers. And there is much within the bizarre range of pre-millenialist theology that would be comical, if it weren't for the astonishing numbers of humorlessly devout believers in this nihilistic mutation of Christian eschatology. According to a 1999 Newsweek poll, forty-five percent of American adults believe that the events described in the Book of Revelations will occur on Earth within their lifetime.

Given the escalated level of these beliefs on the loon-o-meter, why should they be food for concern, no matter how widespread they are? After all, an overwhelming portion of the world's population believed in strange creation myths involving turtles and dragons, etc., not to mention a flat earth, and we've managed to muddle through alright. Where's the harm in people believing a bearded white guy will appear on a cloud and fwoooooosh! them up into the sky to live on in bliss while all the people they don't like get left behind to endure unspeakable torment?

Well, there's the basic hostility, selfishness, and lack of contact with reality revealed in such a belief. But heck, that's their problem, right?

If it were only that. The whole Dispensationalist mythos is so creepy in its obsessive rumination on the intimate details of torture and suffering that will be inflicted upon the sinners who fail to sufficiently hate fags and abortionists and godless liberals that it makes my stomach queasy to contemplate it. I'm not going to recap the details here. But although there is no logic, there is a kind of rhetorical consistency in its reiterative descriptions of pain and destruction. In other words, the Rapture-maniacs are definitely all on the same page of their sadistic hymnal, singing at the tops of their lungs. And one of the elements of their belief is that it is part of their obligation as "Christians" to do everything they can to help bring about the events of the "end times."

But don't ever point out to them the inconsistency between their belief that:

 

A. The Earth has to reach a fever-pitch of total abandonment to sin in order to bring about the Second Coming;

B. They have an obligation to do whatever they can to bring about that Second Coming; and yet…

C. Somehow they have to stave off the abominable sins of homosexual tolerance and women's control of their reproductive choices, even if, (apparently,) this will reduce the sum total of sinfulness needed to precipitate the Millennium.

Again, sinister as these beliefs are, and widespread though they may be, why should we be concerned?

Bill Moyers has covered this in far more detail and with much greater cogency than I could ever manage. (See his article here.) Basically, it comes down to two things:

 

A. The Rapture-maniacs' numbers and fervency have made them a frighteningly potent political force in America; and

B. Because they think Jesus is on his way to pick them up any day, now, they not only feel no obligation to make the world a better place for their children and grandchildren, they think that making it worse will hasten the Divine Air Taxi on its journey to suck them up to Eternal Blissland.

Okay, if that doesn't scare you, you probably fell asleep during Alien, too. I'm not ashamed to admit that it gives me the willies. And it makes me ask what I think is a critical, and much under-examined, question:

 

Just how did such a bizarre, contra-survival belief take such a firm hold on so many people, in a relatively well-educated culture where science, technology, and materialism are pervasive?

What's up with that?

These are not citizens of a non-industrialized tribal culture that still believes the sun is pushed under the flat earth by a giant tortoise all night to rise on the other side in the morning.

Why would someone embrace such a nihilistic, suicidal belief system, so devoid of logic, so dependent on Lovecraftian fantasy?

Why would they rush, like lemmings, to promote a vast war in the Middle East and irreversible ecological destruction of the Earth's resources?

Why would they pin their hopes to the fantasy of Jesus and his giant Rapture-vacuum?

Why, indeed.

I looked into the roots of Rapture-mania, the early incarnations of the Dispensationalist phenomenon and its various offshoots and competing sects.

The initial flourishing of this darkly despairing contortion of Biblical eschatology happened at a time when the benefits of the Industrial Revolution were distributed with growing inequity to an elite class. A large segment of society in rapidly-urbanizing Britain and Europe was left staring hopelessly at a better life that seemed forever beyond their grasp. The many toiled among new and alien machines that brought only misery to them, and wealth, power, and luxury to others.

Rapture beliefs spread like wildfire in the wake of the failed social revolutions of the 1840s, in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The new technologies of the Industrial Revolution had made the poor aware that there was someplace else to go, but they had no hope of going. It was reserved for others-better educated, born into a more fortunate class, gifted by circumstances of birth with access to the new horizon of luxury and wealth.

Their demands to share those benefits had just been brutally crushed in the backlash of the failed revolutions. Economic and political power seemed irrevocably consolidated into the hands of a small elite-an elite who despised them for their ignorance, their credulity, their lack of sophistication.

Into this aching gulf stepped John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield, Edward Irving, Henry Drummond, and the proto-millenialists, with a pleasingly vengeful reading of Revelation and Thessalonians. The believers-humble and theologically 'pure'-are slated for eternal bliss. The sinners, the worldlings, the abandoned hedonists enjoying the fruits of Industrial Revolution wealth-for them, it is boils and rains of fire and unending tortures of the most graphic description.

The believers were beset by profound alienation from a world exploding with new adventures of science and rich possibilities of wealth, and constrained by fear of change, poverty, and social pressure. Rapture-mania is a pathology-but many, if not most, pathologies arise as defenses against worse despair, depression, and hopelessness. After the failure of the social revolution, the rollback of any attempts at progress, the slow loss of the early liberalizing gains in post-Napoleonic Europe, what was left? Liberalism was defeated; it offered no hope. It was a cruel chimera, a broken reed, to be turned upon and despised for its failures.

Fast-forward to the Information Revolution of the 20th century, and the liberal advances that seemed to promise the distribution of its benefits to all. And then the failures, the rolling-back of liberal gains, the growing disparities of wealth between the elite few and the decidedly un-elite many, the fury of denial of that UN-elite status, overlaid on a growing uneasiness and despair. The opaque and ever-growing complexity of information technology that seemed to take its benefits further and further from the grasp of the "ordinary person" and into the realm of a highly-educated few who could design chips and write mysterious code.

Now, again, we see large numbers of otherwise educated individuals, profoundly alienated, turning their backs upon the liberalism that seemed to betray its promise to them, embracing the bitter fantasies that sustained their great-grandparents through a similar social cycle.

If, as Bill Moyers believes, it is a matter of urgency to keep the nihilistic fury of the Rapture-maniacs from irrevocably damaging the Earth's habitability through war and ecological destruction, we must turn our attention to the issues of what makes Rapture-mania, and how it can be unmade. I suggest that the cure is successful social reorganization that will restore hope to the hopeless, and open opportunity to those who feel locked out of the possibilities of modern technology and culture.

The last wave of Rapture-mania finally abated in the wake of the Progressive revolutions that followed World War I. They reformed labor laws, curbed the excesses of the corporate classes, and spread a social safety net under the feet of the vulnerable. If we want to save a habitable world for our grandchildren, we need to pull the rug out from under Rapture-mania with a new wave of hope and opportunity. We must demonstrate that there is hope in this world, not just in cloud-cuckoo-land. That making this world a better place can be even more satisfying than contemplating the richly-deserved tortures of the sinning class.

The Rapture-maniacs have a strong hold on political power and are doing their best to make things more hopeless, rather than less so. They can hear the throbbing engines of the Great Sky Taxi loud in their ears, and they're not about to listen to the feeble voices of the ineffectual liberals who couldn't even hold onto the gains we made in the mid-20th century.

Yet somewhere inside, a great many of them, perhaps most of them (at least those who are not making a cushy living off exploiting the vengeful bearded white guy Jesus myth,) know how creepy and unpleasant this psychotic fantasy really is. If something better comes along, even a faint hope of something better, it might be the catalyst that will begin the return to sanity.

Now, more than ever, the fight to restore hope takes on urgency. It may be the only thing that saves our grandchildren from choking in the reeking effluvia and starving in the devastated wasteland awaiting the "Rapture."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/03/26_taxi.html

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 31, 2005 20:04 | link | comments |

Okay, We Give Up

Okay, We Give Up By The Editors of Scientific American April 2005 There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong. In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence. Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details. Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions. Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either, so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day. Okay, We Give Up MATT COLLINS THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 31, 2005 12:03 | link | comments |

It can happen here...

 

What's Going On?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.

One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denyny pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation.

But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 30, 2005 01:01 | link | comments |

Devolving Florida's Academic Freedom

There has been a bill proposed in both the Florida House (HB 0837 and Florida Senate (S 2126) that is designed to allow students at public universities and colleges to sue if they don't agree with the content or who believe their beliefs are not being respected.  This bill is being sponsored by sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala who is apparently concerned about "dictator professors who controls the classroom," as part of "a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views."  "Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I don't want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door,'" Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.  I encourage EVERYONE in Florida to contact their state legislators in both houses to oppose this legislation.

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 29, 2005 16:00 | link | comments |

On the lighter side...

I've been told, by She Who Rules The Blogworld, that I need to lighten up!

So: One day, while walking to the store, I passed by a Nursing Home. On the front lawn were 6 old ladies laying naked on the grass. I thought this was a bit unusual, but continued on my way to the store. On my return trip, I passed the same Nursing Home with the same 6 old ladies laying naked on the lawn. This time my curiosity got the best of me and I went inside to talk to the manager.

"Do you know there are 6 ladies laying naked on your front lawn?"

"Yes," he said. "They are retired prostitutes and they are having a yard sale".

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 29, 2005 15:36 | link | comments (15) |

Welcome to theocracy

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 29, 2005 14:54 | link | comments (2) |

Evidence, please...

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 29, 2005 13:35 | link | comments |

Shockers!

My living room is presentable!

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 23, 2005 03:57 | link | comments (3) |

Deciphering Gibberish

posted by: BACKTALKER at March 22, 2005 22:46 | link | comments |

Template by motime.com  |  header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de