Positive Liberty

What interests me most about the Craig affair is the disconnect between his social identity and his sexual orientation. When Senator Larry Craig announced to the world that he is not and never has been gay, I don’t think he was trying to purposefully deceive the public. And yes, I do believe that he attempted to do what he was accused of doing. Nor do I believe Craig’s sexual orientation to be “heterosexual” in the sense that Mark Olson and Joe Carter intimate.

Carter cites an interesting research paper on the matter which finds:

[M]ost tearoom participants (a) communicate through non-verbal gestures and seldom speak, (b) do not associate outside the tearoom or attempt to learn one another’s identity or exchange biographical information, (c) do not use force or coercion or attempt to involve youths or children, (d) are primarily heterosexual and married…

I haven’t looked over the paper in detail; but I can pretty safely assert that the majority of men who seek anonymous homosexual encounters in public places like men’s bathrooms are not “primarily heterosexual” in their sexual orientations. Continue Reading »

For those Christians who want to weasel out of Romans 13’s sometimes difficult command to live up to, they often claim Romans 13 means Christians have to obey only good government. The problem is Paul doesn’t say this in Romans 13. And the leader whom Paul admonished believers to obey — Nero — was not a godly leader and did not have a “good” government. He was an unelected tyrant who never sought sought consent to rule over believers. If Nero’s government qualified as “good,” that’s a pretty low standard for tyrannical leaders to meet.

Plain and simple, the Bible tells believers, in no uncertain terms, to obey government as it commands children to obey their parents. The Bible doesn’t say children obey only “good” parents. And indeed, for over fifteen hundred years after Christ that’s the exact analogy Christians literally interpreting their Bibles would use to describe the proper relationship between man and government: Men have no more rightful control over who their civil leaders are than children do over who their parents are.

The notion of republican self-government is extra-biblical. It’s not necessarily inconsistent with the Bible, but it certainly does not derive from the good book. Republican self government, especially the metaphysical justifications for such, derives from the Enlightenment. It is an a-biblical, not necessarily an anti-biblical concept.

I thought Thomas Friedman’s August 26 article in the New York Times was spot on. Unfortunately, it’s available only to subscribers, but here’s a taste:

Continue Reading »

Below the fold, more from Mr. Heersink, who seems to labor under the misconception that libertarians all are somehow a species of neoconservative. Or something.

Continue Reading »

In the words of Andy Towle, the misinformed demonization begins. The Larry Craig story has everyone talking about anonymous gay sex, and here’s ABC News describing how gay men find it:

Over time, people familiar with cruising told ABCNEWS.com, gay men began using a codified system of signals to indicate to others that they were interested in sex. In an effort to curb lewd acts in public — or as some gays argue, in an effort to persecute gay men — undercover police began sting operations in places known for sex soliciting and employed the same codes.

“Tapping of the foot is pretty standard for men who cruise in toilets,” said Keith Griffith, owner of Cruisingforsex.com, a Web site on which visitors post locations popular with men looking for anonymous sex.

“They will usually go to the stall at the far end of the strip of toilets. They will see each other and usually decide to go someplace else. The vast majority have no interest in being seen. They may be meeting in public locations, but they will be as discreet as possible,” Griffith said.

Now, honestly, I’ve known for years that this goes on, as I think most gay men do. Participation? Um, no. Here are some quick observations.

First, not all gay men do this. Just the risk-seeking and self-destructive ones.

My guess is that overwhelmingly, gay men look for sex partners in gay bars, gay chatrooms, and gay social functions. In these places it can be ridiculously easy to find a partner — sometimes without even trying or wanting one. It’s either that, or we are introduced by mutual friends, which is how I met my husband. All of this is rather like… um… gosh, I dunno… the way straight people look for sex partners?

The only gay men who avoid these perfectly legal and inoffensive paths are those who fear being out even more than they fear being arrested. An arrest can be covered up, sometimes. A life partner can’t be — and, weirdly, some people are scared to death of the life partner option for just this reason.

But let’s consider the worst-case scenario of actually looking for a sex partner in a restroom. If the sex is between consenting adults, and if it’s ultimately done in private, then I have a hard time seeing cruising as a crime. A moral failing, sure. A crime? No.

And even if the sex does happen in public, surely this is one of the most minor infractions around. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone sees four feet under a stall instead of two? It’s less permanent than graffiti and possibly less upsetting. Get over yourselves.

Now, of course, if the owner of the place doesn’t want it going on, then it’s certainly wrong. But let’s get a sense of proportion here.

What the Larry Craig story tells us is that one very lonely old man finally got caught doing something he was widely rumored to have been doing for years. It’s mildly offensive to public order, but indicative of a pretty deep lack of self-respect, particularly when coupled with all his family-values posturing. It’s sad. It’s shameful. It’s also pretty small, in all senses of the word.

The story is only important because it allows voters to judge his character a little better, and presumably character is still important to voters. So — do you really want a Senator who would “protect” traditional marriage for straights, but who would try to use his privileged position to get away with anonymous public sex? Wouldn’t an openly gay man actually serve his constituents a lot better, all other things being equal?

This one sat in the post queue for a long time while animal rights questions occupied most of my blogging time. But I’m done with those for now, I promise.

Commenter D. Stephen Heersink, also of The Gay Species, has some difficulties with libertarianism, which he left in a comment a while back. A few of them I think are apt; others, I find misplaced. And some I think are based on factual errors. His objections and my replies, below the fold.
Continue Reading »

Ed Brayton notes an op-ed article by Idaho Rep. Bill Sali who stated how terrible it was to have a Muslim Congressman and a Hindu prayer in Washington DC. If that’s what he wants to believe, fine; but he makes a fool out of himself when he tries to invoke the Founding Fathers on his behalf.

And again, to those who criticize me on my focusing on certain “key Founders” look at the men whom he invokes: Washington, Adams, Madison, and Franklin. These, along with Jefferson, are the names of the figures who invariably will be cited in appeals to the Founders.

Sali starts off his op-ed with quoting one of David Barton’s phony quotations.

The Founders recognized that “it is impossible to rightly govern the without God and the Bible.” It is unfortunate those words, which come directly from George Washington, would be deemed narrow-minded or bigoted if they were spoken today.

Sorry, Washington didn’t say it. And David Barton, the one most responsible for spreading the quotation, admitted it was “unconfirmed” and admonished followers not to spread it. But, alas, most of them haven’t gotten the message (Sali is not an exception; do a google search on the Internet of that and the other “unconfirmed” quotations and they are presently constantly spread by the Christian Nation crowd).

All of the Founders Sali invokes were syncretic universalists who believed many or all world religions were valid ways to God. Franklin and Adams both explicitly identified Islam as a sound religion. And I’ve noted Adams claimed Hindus worship the same “Providence” Jews and Christians do. Washington and Madison, likewise, referred to God as “The Great Spirit” when speaking to unconverted Indians.

It’s not Christianity, or even “Judeo-Christianity” that is America’s implicit public religion. Rather America’s Founding political theology is theistic rationalism which prefers to speak of God in generic philosophical terms and encompasses religions outside of the “Judeo-Christian” tradition like Islam, Hinduism, Native American and pagan Greco-Roman spirituality.

The Hindu prayer in Congress and Muslim Congressman swearing on the Koran, plain and simple, reap what the key Founders sowed.

Commenter Charles instructed me to “re-read the Book of Exodus, and then tell me there was no ‘political’ liberty for the NATION of Israel.” Since I’m discussing Dr. Robert Kraynak’s work, I’ve already noted his answer for this, filtered through Dr. Gregg Frazer’s Ph.D. thesis:

First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” Third, “insofar as the covenant with Israel sanctions specific forms of government, the main ones are illiberal and undemocratic;” including patriarchy, theocracy, and kingships established by divine right. Fourth, “the Bible shows that God delivers the people from slavery in Egypt and supports national liberation, not for the purpose of enjoying their political and economic rights, but for the purpose of putting on the yoke of the law in the polity of Moses.” Fifth, “the content of the divine law revealed to Moses consists, in the first place, of the Ten Commandments rather than the Ten Bill of Rights, commanding duties to God, family, and neighbors rather than establishing protections for personal freedom.” Finally, the combination of judicial, civil, ceremonial, and dietary laws imposed on the people “regulate all aspects of religious, personal, and social life.” The history of Israel, therefore, had to be radically rewritten to provide support for the demands of political liberty and for republican self-government.

– Kraynak, 46-49 quoted in Frazer, “The Political Theology of the American Founding,” Ph.D. dissertation, 18-19.

Speaking of such radical rewriting, Continue Reading »

Jim Henley raises some good points in this post on animal rights, and I think the soundest of them is as follows…
Continue Reading »

First, on the left:

Suppose that a President invaded another country, and adopted the unusual tactic of sending our troops in unarmed and unprotected, one platoon at a time, holding signs that said: We want to take over your country! Please surrender! And suppose that, unsurprisingly, the result of this was that those troops were all killed, one after the other. Suppose that the President was urged to adopt a different strategy, but refused, on the grounds that admitting mistakes would give comfort to our enemies; and that when some people began to mutter: not as much comfort as making those mistakes in the first place, he accused them of being defeatists. Finally, suppose that after several thousand troops had been killed in this way, the American people stopped supporting this President and his war. It would be beyond galling for the President to lecture them on their lack of will, or their insufficient concern for the people of the invaded country, when the reason for their lack of support was that his own idiocy had made any good outcome impossible.

I don’t see any difference between that case and this one, except that the Iraqi people would have been a lot better off if the President had used my imaginary tactics. And that’s why I find being lectured about my lack of will by this President laughable. There was a genuine failure of will when it came to Iraq, and while success was unlikely in any case, this failure made it impossible. But, as I have argued elsewhere, it was not our failure. It was Bush’s.

And then on the right:

I’m mad. Plain and simple.

I am mad my party has descended into a swirling vortex of madness in which no one is accountable for anything, everyone is a hypocrite, and that no one cares if a policy or position is good or beneficial to the country, but whether or not there is some short term political advantage.

I am mad that the good aspects of the Republican party (respect for individual liberty, the belief in balanced budgets and sensible tax policy, free trade, etc.- you may not agree with those being good aspects, but I thought they were there) have been drowned out and been discredited for the next half century by the ramblings of mad men and religious nuts.

I am mad at myself for not listening to people prior to the war and instead followed this administration and the pigheaded cheerleaders in the press and the blogosphere. I should have known better. Read some of my old posts(pre-2004)- they are truly atrocious and really embarrassing.

I am mad that I defended the indefensible for too long.

I am mad that the Republican party now stands for torture, domestic surveillance, government secrecy, permanent detention, and the imperial presidency.

I am mad that political debate in the Republican party now amounts to little more than calling your opposition traitors and accusing them of treason.

I am mad at a whole host of things, but most of all I am mad at myself. When I look at these folks, the right blogosphere in general, the Hewitts, the Malkins, the Powerline, the NRO, the Weekly Standard in particular, what I see are people who either have not learned a damned thing in the past few years or whose loyalty to a political party is so great that they don’t care.

I think a little shrill is warranted, and I think anything less than shrill is not adequate attonement for my past transgressions. These folks need to be stopped. They need to be discredited, the Republican Party needs to be completely and wholly destroyed and built back up from the bottom up.

(The author of the second is John Cole of Balloon Juice.)

In recent months, I’ve found myself reflecting on the achievements of Western culture–on what it is that makes it worthy of success against its enemies, domestic and foreign. And I’ve often thought of the first episode of James Burke’s The Day The Universe Changed, which I still think one of the best, most eloquent discussions of why Western civilization deserves to prevail. I’m delighted to see that it’s available on Google video (though split up into five parts; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It’s a brilliant exposition, showing how freedom–whether capitalism or freedom of inquiry in science–lie at the heart of the human values Western civilization has discovered. Check out especially part 2:

That’s the kind of thing we do. We try to take the universe apart to see how it works. We can’t leave anything alone without knowing what it is. We are insatiably curious. And that’s what we defend here, with all this military hardware. The right to be curious. To ask questions and get answers. To question authority and remove it from power if we don’t like what it’s telling us. And that’s why we’ve changed, constantly, throughout history, to become what we are today. Because we’ve never stopped asking questions. And what have we got as a result? Answers. A mountain of them, gathered over the centuries. So much, we’ve had to invent systems just to handle it. So big, information processing itself is now a science. So total, it’s generated the full entire complex of the modern Western world, a world based on information, that we can defend from a hole inside a mountain thanks to the knowledge we’ve accumulated, and that we want to go on being free to accumulate.

It seems the only time the Family Research Council features anything worth reading — that is seriously contemplating as opposed to criticizing as extremist crankery — is when they feature Straussian scholars. For the other side arguing contra Kraynak, see this article by Thomas West.

Robert Kraynak, a doctrinaire conservative Catholic and professor of political science at Colgate University, summarizes for the FRC the thesis of his book Christian Faith and Modern Democracy. The whole article (and book) are worth reading. I’ll highlight some key points. [Note, I more or less sympathize with his point on the disconnect between Christian principles and founding-era republican principles; however, as my readers can guess, I don't sympathize with his ideal ruling political system.] Continue Reading »

Leitmotif:

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous–
Almost, at times, the Fool.

Continue Reading »

Ron Moore manages to encapsulate everything wrong with Battlestar Galactica in a single sentence about a different TV show. Praising the conclusion of The Sopranos, he says, “I’m glad [the writer] thumbed his nose at the tyranny of the narrative drive to bring things to a tidy conclusion so we can all clap and walk away.”

One who considers the imperatives of “the narrative drive” to be “tyranny” would be well advised to avoid a career as a writer, IMHO.

(Yes, I still consider myself a BSG fan, despite my serious qualms about the last season and my agreement with Bill Gordon’s criticisms of this self-consciously naturalistic show. The show is an outstanding specimen of naturalism, with brilliant acting and production values. But its rebellion against the “tyranny” of narrative technique has crippled its real potential.)

Opened up a new stick of Degree brand antipersperant today. On top, impressed into the substance, was the phrase, “Take The Risk.”

Aside from the inanity of this slogan, as a public policy matter, do we really want to encourage people who are just about to put on deodorant to simply “take the risk”?