Clearing up inconsistencies

The LA Times today has an editorial decrying the inconsistency of the Supreme Court regarding First Amendment religious monument cases, seen especially in the Summun adjudication. The editorial board agrees with the ruling, but the case could have been avoided if the Court was more consistent in its stands on religious displays:

The Supreme Court was right to hand down (though not on stone tablets) a ruling against a religious group that demanded that its precepts share space in a public park with the Ten Commandments. But the controversy never would have arisen if the court had adopted a consistent attitude toward religious displays on public property.

The editorial points out the potential problem with the Summun case:

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the park wasn't a public forum. Rather, the Ten Commandments and other monuments in the park were "government speech," which needn't be balanced against other points of view. The principle is a sound one. No one would suggest that critics of President Obama's stimulus plan have a 1st Amendment right to commandeer White House printers to run off fliers stating their objections.

The problem is that the Ten Commandments convey an essentially religious message, albeit an older and more familiar one than the Seven Aphorisms. Alito was emphatic that the decision didn't undermine language in the 1st Amendment prohibiting a government "establishment" of religion. Still, the practical effect of the ruling is that a text sacred to Jews and Christians is displayed in a public park, but not the teachings of a minority religion.

The editorial ends discussing the pair of 2005 rulings on Ten Commandment displays (McCreary; Van Orden) and how these rulings, combined with the Summun case, will affect next year's Salazar v. Buono case, a case that could clear up the confusion and inconsistency:

In a pair of 5-4 decisions, the court in 2005 struck down the posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses in Kentucky but upheld a display on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. ... The decision in the Texas case encouraged some religious activists to believe that the court was stealthily lowering the wall separating church and state. They may also take comfort from last week's decision. The way to dispel that impression is for the court to make clear that permissible "government speech" doesn't include endorsing a particular religion.

The court will have an opportunity to do that when it rules, probably next year, on a challenge to the constitutionality of just such a message: an eight-foot-tall cross in the Mojave National Preserve commemorating war dead. Californians who insist that such a display is innocuous should ask themselves how they would feel if the cross were replaced by the Seven Aphorisms.

Reaction Times Predict Longevity

According to a new research study, reaction times are a good predictor of how long a person will live, better than blood pressure, excercise levels, and weight. People with "sluggish" reaction times are 2.6 times as likely to die prematurely. Methodologically speaking, the researchers studied almost 7500 volunteers for over 20 years with subjects reacting to and matching numbers on a computer screen. Taking into account those people who have died, especially those who had heard disease, the researchers found:

... that people’s reaction times are a measure of their intelligence, which in turn is an indicator of their body’s ‘system integrity’ – how well it is wired together.
...
The authors say there is growing evidence that people with higher IQs tend to live longer and healthier lives.
...
‘It has been hypothesised that reaction time, as a measure of speed of the brain’s information-processing capacity, may be a marker for bodily system integrity.

‘This way, slower reaction times, or poorer information-processing ability, might be an indication of suboptimal physiological functioning, which may in turn be related to early death.’

Who needs the Holy Grail? I've got the reactions of a cheetah. True story.

(h/t The Huffington Post)

Religion in Public School, Emotion and Misunderstanding

Bob Smietana of The Tennessean writes that when it comes to religion in public school, emotion and misunderstanding generally prevail. Smietana interviewed lawyers and scholars from several church-state organizations, both conservative and progressive, and citing a couple contemporary cases, argues that our general misconceptions of the First Amendment lead to anger and frustration when we are confronted with a religion-in-school conflict:

"People tend to carry around two failed models in their head," [Senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, Charles] Haynes said. "Either we keep religion entirely out of public schools or we keep on doing what we used to do in the good old days and promote religion in school."

Because of those failed models, schools end up making poor decisions when it comes to religion.

Schools, however, can try to prevent any church-state issues by offering a clear set of guidelines beforehand to students and parents:

The most important thing that schools can do is to draft rules that address religious expression before there is a conflict, Haynes says.

If the rules are spelled out ahead of time, religious parents will know that their faith is respected. And nonreligious parents will know that their children's religious liberty is being safeguarded.

Hayes, in conclusion, offers a general principle schools should follow ... well, he just regurgitates common First Amendment wisdom, but very important nonetheless:

"Whatever a school does with parents or other religious groups — they have to make sure that it is not establishing or denigrating religion. To protect all students, they have to stay neutral in matters of faith."

But like many things in life, this is easier said than done. Striking that balance is, needless to say, pretty tough, seen especially in the ways we react to these cases.

Obama like Bush??

Today's Washington Post had an editorial in which the author, Jackson Diehl, argues that Pres. Obama is very similar Pres. Bush. According to Diehl:

• both initially have/had high approval ratings to start their term,
• both have/had crises earlier in their presidential career (Bush had 9/11; Obama the economic crisis),
• in light of these crises, both have/did not, as of yet, asked the public to sacrifice to overcome the hardship,
• both crises have garnered/garnered international support and camaraderie,
• both have made/made initial gestures of bipartisanship,
• and, finally, both have pushed/pushed polarizing partisan legislation through Congress.

Pretty misleading aren't they? These guys (1, 2) aren't buying it either. And, let's not overlook the fact that we are comparing 50 days of work to eight years. That's fair, right?

I sold out.

One of my friends thought that I could help drum up traffic to this blog if I got on Twitter. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to join some other social networking interface, but I crumbled.

Please everyone who is on Twitter, friend me or follow me or do unto me whatever you twitterers do. I'm here.

Yikes!

Marc Ambinder finds this gem, where Newt Gingrich, in an interview discussing his possibility of running for president, opines that Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-7) would make a great Speaker of the House. Saith the Newt:

“You’ve got the Congressman right here in Virginia, who is the number two Republican in the House Eric Cantor who I think is going to become Speaker of the House and I think is a great great leader.”

I've stared at this screen for quite some time in order to come up with a witty closing statement for this post. I got nothing. Gold star for the wittiest conclusion!

Double-shift: Tom's a legislatin'

Within his first month of service, Rep. Perriello co-authored a bill that was passed and funded for $13 billion dollars. Well, Tom's at it again.

In a bipartisan effort, along with Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL) and Michael McMahon (D-NY), Tom introduced a new bill to reduce the number of suicides among our soldiers and veterans. From their press release:

Currently, the Department of Defense requires service members to fill out a mental health assessment before returning home. Unfortunately, if this subjective paper assessment is filled out honestly and indicates risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or depression, the service member may be prevented from returning home in order to ensure that the mental condition does not go untreated. The delay in returning home coupled with the stigma associated with reaching out for help to treat a mental injury prevents soldiers from being honest in their assessments. A mandatory screening for all service members can reduce the growing rates of suicides amongst service members while fighting this debilitating stigma.

Money quote from Tom, emphasis original:

“With the Army reporting the highest number of soldier suicides in 28 years, we can no longer afford to keep mental health screening in the shadows,” said Rep. Perriello. “Our brave men and women in uniform, especially those serving in recent wars, deserve confidential and comprehensive medical treatment as they adjust to life back home. I’m proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation with my colleagues because taking care of our returning troops is something both parties can agree on.”

For those of you keeping score, that's two pieces of legislation in less than two month's time. That's rockstar status in my mind.

This is your brain ... on God

Assistant Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, University of Toronoto, found differences in brain responses to anxiety and stress in believers and non-believers. Using a standard cognitive psychology test, the Stroop task, which measures brain activity, Inzlicht found:

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made.

This correlation between brain activity, errors made, and religiosity still held when correcting for personality and cognitive ability, to which Inzlicht concludes:

... [R]eligious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown. But Inzlicht cautions that anxiety is a "double-edged sword" which is at times necessary and helpful.

"Obviously, anxiety can be negative because if you have too much, you're paralyzed with fear," he says. "However, it also serves a very useful function in that it alerts us when we're making mistakes. If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?"

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Murder convicted in Harry Potter actor's death

A London jury convicted Karl Bishop, 22, in the murder of teenage actor Rob Knox, 18, a minor character in an upcoming Harry Potter movie. Knox was killed outside a London bar in May, shortly after wrapping up his role in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." Knox played the character Marcus Belby.

I'm saddened by the loss of such a young and potentialled life, but for the life of me, I do not remember the roll of Belby in the book series. Any help?

Negative effects of Palin's attractiveness

Psychologists Nathan Heflick and Jamie Goldenberg of the University of South Florida studied the effects of Gov. Sarah Palin's attractiveness on the presidential campaign. They conducted the study after she was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican ticket, before she fell apart in media interviews. To spoil the conclusions for you, Palin's attractiveness did negatively affect perceptions of her:

"It wasn’t her appearance per se” that soured people on Palin, Heflick said in an interview. “It was the effect her appearance had on their perception of her competence and humanity. Those variables made people less likely to vote for her.” ...

So at least in this sample, it was Republicans and independents who were internally debating Palin’s suitability for the job. The study suggests that their confidence in her abilities may have decreased the more they focused on her looks — and thus, in feminist terms, objectified her.

You can read about the study's methodology in the article. It's a sad world, however, where the attractiveness of a male candidate potrays youth and vitality (i.e., JFK and Obama) and, to the extent this study is generalizable, the attractiveness of a female candidate portrays incompetence.

(h/t Ben Smith)

Not a good time to be a Republican Party Chair

Speaking of Michael Steele, there is a movement afoot, apparently, to unseat him as the RNC Chair, as one RNC committeeperson has asked Steele to resign. For what it's worth, the committeeperson, Dr. Ada Fisher, was a supporter of Katon Dawson, and has repeatedly voiced opposition to Steele. She is also one of three African-Americans on the national committee. North Carolinians should recognize her as the three time congressional challenger and loser to Rep. Mel Watt. "Get a Doctor in the House!"

Jeff Frederick, the Republican Party of Virginia Chair, is also being pressured to resign. Today, Republican presumptive nominee for Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell, voiced his concern over Frederick's leadership. Lowell has the scoop:

“It is clear to me, after hearing from Republican leaders across the state, that as we move forward with our campaign, as well as the other statewide and House of Delegates races, it would be helpful for the Republican Party of Virginia to have more effective leadership in this pivotal year,” McDonnell said in an e-mail.

Ouch. When the current standard-bearer for the whole Republican Party in Virginia says that Frederick is a disaster, things are really bad. Of note, Frederick has every intention of finishing his term.

Fairly or unfairly, and much to Democrats' amusement, both Steele and Frederick have become iconic laughingstocks, nationally and state-wide, respectively, to the Republican party. Are these guys worth keeping?

GOP: Limbaugh or Bipartisanship V

Evolving from their erratic message, the Republican Party has decided on a messaging strategy concerning Limbaugh. Put simply, Republicans will blame the situation on the White House, call it a distraction, and pivot back to the economy. In a Politico interview of John Boehner:

But try as he might, Boehner can't avoid the chatter on cable news and the Internet about Rush Limbaugh and his public feuds with the White House and a handful of Beltway Republicans.

"It's a huge distraction created by the White House" to avoid talking about components of the budget, Boehner complained. "You would think the White House would have more important things to do."

Shortly afterwards, Pat Buchanan and Ari Fleisher mouthed the message.

And RNC Chair Michael Steele:

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele now says the sparring between himself and conservative radio commentator Limbaugh was a "sideshow distraction."

At least he's on message.

High-Tech Fasting for Lent

Some Catholic Bishops are encouraging their parishioners to give up modern technological gadgetry for Lent, a "high-tech fast." Money quote:

Roman Catholic bishops in Italy are urging the faithful to go on a high-tech fast for Lent, switching off modern appliances from cars to iPods and abstaining from surfing the Web or text messaging until Easter.
...
"It's a small way to remember the importance of concrete and not virtual relationships," the Modena diocese said in a statement. "It's an instrument to remind us that our actions and lifestyles have consequences in distant countries."

How many of you could do this? Without a car and the internet, I'm toast.

Bill Leonard to retire as Dean of Wake Forest Divinity School

The Dean of Wake Forest Divinity School, Bill Leonard, has announced that he is seeking to retire his post on June 30, 2010. He will continue to preach Church History and in the Religion Department:

"The opportunity to work with Wake Forest undergraduate and divinity students has been one of the highlights of my time as dean and I look forward to continuing those classroom relationships," Leonard said.

Dean Leonard is a great man, and I am glad to see that he is sticking with the institution. He was the founding Dean of the School (1999) and has built an excellent program, from which, for better or worse, I am a product.

Faith and the economy II

Eric Sapp, a leader in the progressive faith movement and a consultant to the Perriello campaign, provides a nine part series discussing Christian theology and the budget. The underlying purpose of this series is to provide a theological rationale to Democrats for their priorities during the upcoming budget debates:

One aspect of the Democratic response to the upcoming Republican budget attacks must be a willingness by "faithful Democrats" to discuss budget and tax policies from a moral perspective and to challenge Republicans to apply the same moral codes to kitchen table issues that they so eagerly embrace on bedroom issues...because we all know that as soon as we start talking about budget and taxes, the Republicans will put away their Bibles and turn to Darwinian social and economic theories to support their policy positions.

Over the next eight posts, Sapp provides theological arguments, via full scriptural citation and explanation, for Demoratic budgetary priorities. (Importantly, I have rearranged the order of Sapp's posts to provide for, in my mind, a better logical progression, but not to take away from his good work.) First, God has a preferential option for the poor - they are especially blessed in God's eyes - and we as Christians are required to help the poor. Ushering in the Kingdom of God requires us to not only help the poor and downtrodden but also to combat the systemic injustice present in the world that imprison many children of God. As both Testaments clearly state, there should be "direct actions by government leaders on behalf of the least of these;" there should be a strong budgetary emphasis on the poor. On the other hand, there is a clear biblical pronouncement against "materialism and seeking material gain at the expense of the poor." Condemnation is reserved for those in power who use their positions of authority for personal gain and not in service to God, to help the last and the lost. Unfortunately, there is a tendency of leaders in the Religious Right and the Republican party to follow the letter of the law without following its true purpose. Political leaders who use Christian scripture to legislate morality should be scripturally compelled to rail against notion of the "ownership society" and that taxes are "your money," as we are merely stewards of God's blessings. With these points in mind Sapp finally concludes:

If certain elected officials and Christian interest groups seeking to influence elections and government claim that they cannot check their faith at the door when it comes to their so-called "family values" issues, then this same faith must also inform their positions during tax and budget debates along with all the debates on the "compassion issues." Although "family values" issues are mentioned only peripherally in the Bible, Jesus and the prophets are quite explicit about the clear responsibilities those with power and wealth have to the "least of these"...not to mention that policy decisions in these arenas have an enormous effect on families!

If you find any of these claims provocative or agitating, please click on and read Sapp's work, as my brief synopsis might have slighted his intentions.

Peace.

Faith and the economy I

With the stimulus package and the budget, religious leaders are discussing the implications of the economy through a theological lens. I will post more on this tomorrow, but here are some recent events/posts on this subject.

Yesterday, according to Faith in Public Life, Christian leaders held a press conference to discuss how the new budget is a "major shift of prioritizing domestic poverty that can really help level the playing field." As the nation's budget is a moral document that "reflect[s] the values and priorities as a nation," these leaders are calling on Congress to make sure the budget "preserves funding that prioritizes the poor."

Today, the New York Times had an opinion piece on faith and the deficit by Stanley Fish. With the economic crisis looming and the nation, and all Americans, in debt, Fish provides two differing ways in which the deficit can be understood in theological terms. First, given the Protestant ethic of "thrift and virtue," it is the Christian's duty to be good stewards of our finances, for if we are free from economic crisis, we can devote our energies towards God. Second, using good Calvinism, our financial bankruptcy highlights our moral bankruptcy, to which Jesus Christ, to pay our debts, saved us. (h/t Reader Darren)

Fallon sings about Foxx

For those who don't know, I was a campaign manager for Roger Sharpe's unsuccessful congressional bid against Rep. Virginia Foxx in 2006. Recently on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon," Fallon sang a "slow news jam" about the stimulus package, Nancy Pelosi, Republican Governors, and Rep. Foxx. Kinda amusing, but you have to sit through a sweet preview to Watchmen first.



(h/t Shenanigans)

GOP: Limbaugh or Bipartisanship IV

Reader Matt provides another good way to look at the Democrat's approach to Limbaugh, Limbaugh as foil:

I would, however, throw in another reason why this is brilliant politics. It isn't that Rush is Rush, it is that Rush is Bush. For his entire campaign, Obama had a foil who the electorate hated. Liberals hated Bush, independents hated Bush, and enough conservatives hated Bush that he was an easy target. The dilemna that Mccain found himself in was supporting Bush while somehow distancing himself. He had to get independents believing that he rejected Bush's policies while getting the die hard right wing to believe that he was one of them. He had to do this while also beating one of the best politicians we have seen in some time. He obviously failed.

Now Bush is out of office and not saying anything. So Obama picks a new polarizing voice, someone who will enrage liberals, turn off moderates, and make the Republican base seem like either reasonable to most people or traitors to the die hards. Just like with Mccain, win the country and lose your base or win your base and lose the country. I'm not saying that the Obama administration thought it out in these terms, but it wouldn't suprise me if they did. They needed a new Bush, and they got a fatter, dumber one.

New Job

So, I start my new job today. Hooray, income! With that said, until I find a routine, I will be blogging at a somewhat reduced rate. Please stick around, as I will still try to provide a couple substantive posts here on a daily basis.

Wish me luck.

Nerd alert!

Tomorrow, 3/3/09, has math fans celebrating Square Root Day:

"These days are like calendar comets, you wait and wait and wait for them, then they brighten up your day -- and poof -- they're gone," said Ron Gordon, a Redwood City teacher who started a contest meant to get people excited about the event.

The winner gets, of course, $339 for having the biggest Square Root Day event.

Gordon's daughter even set up a Facebook page -- one of a half-dozen or so dedicated to the holiday -- and hundreds of people had signed up with plans to celebrate in some way. Celebrations are as varied: Some cut root vegetables into squares, others make food in the shape of a square root symbol.

No joke required.