ReligiousLeftLaw.com

Money and the Democrats

In a series of well known decisions, Republicans on the Supreme Court have made it easy for big money to influence the outcome of election campaigns. The cynical side of me suggests that it is not a coincidence that these decisions are likely to help Republicans over the long haul.

So I find it surprising that in this difficult year for Democrats, the Democratic Party committees and the Democratic Super PACS are outraising the comparable Republican groups by substantial margins. See (Wall Street Journal subscription required). This does not include money given to 501 (c) (4) groups where disclosure is not required, but it is still worrisome to Republicans, like those at the Journal.

It ought to prompt some concern by the rank and file Democrats though because it is a vivid reminder that the Democrats depend upon large donations just as much as the hated Republicans. When Barack Obama first ran for President, much was made of the large amount of money he raised in small donations. Footnote: he raised immensely more in large donations.

Why are Democrats raising more? My best guess is that more businesses are recognizing that the scorched earth policies of the Republican Party are bad for business. Indeed, a large part of the money given to Republicans was designed to assure that Tea Party candidates not succeed in primaries. More important, who is backing the different parties? I am not sure that the top money givers lists are all that revealing. Of course, unions give to Democrats. Oil companies give to Republicans. The way some businesses hedge their bets is interesting. Some of the top Democratic contributors are liberals who earned their money in hedge funds. Are they merely public spirited (no doubt they are to a large extent), or do they also have business interests in the outcome? One thing for sure: we need more solid reporting on what candidates are promising in order to raise money.

For the top organizational money givers, see Open Secrets Organizations. For the top individuals, see Individuals. For some information on the top individuals giving money to the Democrats, see Steyer, Simons, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/meet-fred-eychaner-the-most-mysterious-figure-in-democratic-party-politics-20140508, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg.

 

Indic Traditions & Neurophilosophy: Beyond Reductionism, Physicalism, and Computationalism

One of our foremost scholars of Indic philosophies, Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad, has an important guest-post at the Indian Philosophy blog: “On the possibility and nature of neurophilosophical study of Indic traditions.” I happen to be in full agreement on the following proposition: “I am not particularly confident that neuroscience in its current paradigm and practice settles anything about the nature and content of the discourse of these [i.e., Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist] contemplative practices.”

Frank Talk about Women and the Catholic Hierarchy

Sister Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J. is a prominent Catholic theologian whose book Quest for a Living God was criticized by a committee of American Bishops for not toeing the Vatican line. I would ordinarily regard this as a description and not a criticism, but in this case there is substantial evidence that the Bishops misread the book, criticized positions she did not take, disagreed with positions she did take that are consistent with the Catholic catechism, claimed that she had undermined the Gospel (anyone who has read any of her books would find this claim implausible) and otherwise engaged in careless analysis. Indeed, the analysis was so poor that Commonweal editor Grant Gallicho was prompted to write a post in which he wondered whether the doctrinal committee had even read the book! See here. As is so often with censorial criticism, purchases of the book significantly increased.

Recently, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the umbrella organization for most of the 50,000 Catholic nuns in the U.S. decided to given Johnson an award for her book. As an apparent part of its campaign to clamp down on Catholic nuns (a campaign Pope Francis has not visibly  interrupted), the Vatican through Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith criticized  LCWR for its decision to honor Johnson. Well last week, Sister Johnson accepted the award and gave a wonderfully perceptive speech that is well worth reading for its substance and for insight as to why she is so special. Here is the link to her speech: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/17/let-female-speculate-full-text-sister-elizabeth-johnsons-talk-lcwr/

For further commentary by Mollie Wilson O’Reilly, see https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/lcwr-assembly-elizabeth-johnson-speaks-her-mind 

Let's Stop Whistling Dixie: Missouri's Toxic Political Culture Must Change

Quite properly, journalistic reaction to events in Ferguson, Missouri, has focused on the militarization of the police, on the role of racism in the killing of unarmed African-American men, and on the political disenfranchisement that allows communities like Ferguson to operate in obvious defiance of public sentiment.

But there is another element peculiar to Missouri politics that must have light shed upon it.  That is the sharp right-ward turn conservative politics in that State has taken.  In its best moments, conservatism stands for caution, for prudence, for a government that is efficient yet serves the needs of all.

There was a time when conservatives in Missouri stood for these things, but that is no longer the case.  Rather, what is visible to the outside observer is a dangerous movement towards the outermost fringes.  For it is fair to say that a toxic neo-confederatism has emerged as a force to be reckoned with at the very heart of Missouri's government -- its state legislature.

Let's consider Brian Nieves, a State Senator from West St. Louis.  Nieves is not some obscure back-bencher.  He's been a member of the State Legislature since 2002, rising to the position of House Majority Whip before moving on to the Senate, where he now chairs the Committee on General Laws.

And what has Senator Nieves been doing in this position of trust?  He has injected neo-confederatism into the law-making function.  Consider Senate Joint Resolution 45, a state constitutional amendment Nieves proposed in January, 2012, which sought to revive the discredited Confederate principle of state nullification.  The amendment would have declared that Missouri enjoyed the "sovereign" right to treat as null and void all federal law on gun control; abortion; climate change; federally-subsidized health care; same-sex marriage; hate crimes; and a range of other topics.  In other words, had this amendment been adopted, Missouri would have been free to reject as non-binding a large body of federal statutes and judicial decisions.

Nullification, of which this is a modern manifestation, is an idea that has its origins in the efforts of the Southern planter class of the 1820's and 1830's to defend slavery against an encroaching federal government.  In 1832, the federal government tried to enforce a tariff in South Carolina that posed a threat to the profitability of the slave-based cotton trade that formed the cornerstone of that State's economy.

Purporting to defend the Constitution from an allegedly unconstitutional tariff, the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification declared that laws which "violated the true meaning and intent [of the Constitution] are null, void, and no law."  When President Andrew Jackson threatened a military response, South Carolina backed down, although three decades later it chose secession rather than recognize Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States.

Nieves' joint resolution did not carry the day.  But that did not deter the nullificationists in the State Legislature from a second, more successful attempt to assert Missouri's self-proclaimed right to nullify federal law.

"The Second Amendment Preservation Act," it was called, and it was introduced in January, 2014.  It took direct aim at federal gun control legislation.  Listing numerous federal laws on the subject, it declared the named provisions "shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state."  Just like the South Carolina slave owners of the 1830s, the bill's sponsor declared that the proposed law was needed to defend the Constitution against an aggressive and out-of-control federal government.

This time, the nullificationists enjoyed greater success.  In February, 2014, the Missouri Senate approved the bill by a vote of 23-10, with near-unanimous Republican support.  The Missouri Tea Party rejoiced.  In April, 2014, the State House of Representatives also passed the bill.

It is past time, way past time, 150 years past time, to be playing around with Confederate ideology.  That Republicans in the Missouri legislature gave overwhelming support to a piece of legislation whose origins can be traced to the ugliest moments in America's slave-owning past stands as a badge of infamy.  The Missouri Republican Party would do well to repudiate this legislation and promise to stop playing with the dynamite of nullification.

I've got news for Missouri's political class.  They need to stop reviving the odious, discredited ideology of the Southern slaveocracy.  They must instead return to reality and address the social crisis Ferguson represents.  For in truth, African-Americans face substantial obstacles in Missouri.  The four-year high-school graduation rate for African-Americans is 76 percent (as of 2009/2010).  (The white graduation rate is 89 percent).  The poverty rate for African-Americans is 27.7 percent (as of 2007/2011).  The white poverty rate for the same period is 12.1 percent.  The unemployment rate of African-Americans (2008/2012) is 18.0 percent.  (For white Missourians it is 7.3 percent).  The incarceration rate for African-Americans (as of June 30, 2012) is 38.2 percent.

It's time for Missouri's right-wingers to leave the nineteenth century behind.  It is time for all Missourians -- indeed, time for all Americans -- to start building a more just and equitable world, one free of institutional racism and yawning racial disparities.  Missouri was once the home of far-sighted progressives.  Harry Truman desegregated the Armed Forces in 1948.  Democratic Senator Stuart Symington voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act at great political risk.  Missouri, it is time to get serious.  The world is watching.

Cross-posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/lets-stop-whistling-dixie_b_5692767.html 

Satanists, Hobby Lobby, and Free Speech

The Huffington Post reports here that a Satanic religious group is citing Hobby Lobby to claim that the rights to religious freedom of women belonging to the group would be violated by abortion materials required by informed consent laws. Their claim is that the materials include false statements and that their religion calls for making health decisions based on the best scientific understanding of the world. As Marc DeGirolami observes at the Center for Law and Religion (here), however, Hobby Lobby has no application to the informed consent laws of state governments (it only applies to the Federal government) and it is not clear that the mere reception of materials is a serious enough burden on religion to trigger statutory or constitutional religion protections (even assuming the Satanists were to qualify as a religion).

A freedom of religion objection is unsustainable, but a freedom of speech objection is well placed when the government compels doctors to provide false or misleading information to their patients. See Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (adopting the principle, but misapplying it – see discussion by Michael Dorf here). Of course, the government can regulate the practice of medicine, and it would be crazy to say that all regulation of doctor-patient communications require strict scrutiny. But that does not turn those communications into a First Amendment free zone. Borrowing from Dorf, government could not require doctors to inform patients of the value of voting for Democrats to improve their health care before proceeding with a surgical operation. Whatever the standards applied to professional speech, it seems obvious that government has no legitimate interest in compelling doctors to give false information to patients. We need not wait for a Satanist to have an abortion and be provided with false information. To the extent, any of the laws in the 35 states with special informed consent laws for the abortion context require that false or misleading information be provided, rightly understood, the First Amendment stands in the way.

(For an excellent recent discussion of compelled speech of doctors in the abortion context with citations to the cases and relevant literature, see Stewart v. Loomis, 992 F.Supp.2d 585 (M.D. N.C. 2014))

Reflections on Public Unions and First Amendment Imperialism

I argued in a recent post here that the Supreme Court has prepared the way to overturn a 40 year old precedent that has protected the financial stability of public unions. Abood v. Detroit  Board of Education held that objecting members of a bargaining unit could not be forced under the First Amendment to pay union dues used for its political expenditures, but could be compelled to pay union dues used to support collective bargaining, not because the First Amendment was inapplicable, but because First Amendment standards were satisfied. On the last day of the term this year, Harris v. Quinn criticized Abood’s view that First Amendment standards are satisfied when objecting members of a bargaining unit are forced to pay dues to support collective bargaining. I argued that Abood was rightly decided for the wrong reasons. I do not think the First Amendment rights  of an individual are implicated when he or she is forced to fund something with which he disagrees. Here as elsewhere stupid slogans aside money is not speech. When money is taken from us we do not speak. Abood is right because it is legitimate for government to fund the collective bargaining efforts of unions; it is not legitimate for government to give money for the political expenses of an entity known to support one political party over another.

The question I want to raise in this post is this: I understand why someone can think that being forced to support political ideologies to which they are opposed violates their personal First Amendment rights. But what does collective bargaining have to do with the First Amendment? So far as I know, we have not yet come to the day when the regulation of collective bargaining is thought to trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Perhaps the idea is that freedom of speech is implicated whenever individuals are forced to subsidize ventures to which they are ideologically opposed. Leave aside, the chaos this would impose on the tax system, is it possible that Hobby Lobby was really a free speech masquerading as a freedom of religion of case? The answer provided in Abood is that individuals have a First Amendment interest (albeit outweighed by other interests) in not being forced to subsidize the position taken in the speech of unions taking place in the collective bargaining process. The Court argues that many of the positions taken by public employee unions are of public interest in a manner that is reminiscent of the Court’s attempt in the Virginia Pharmacy case to suggest that advertising is of public interest. The truth is that the game of finding public interest is easy to play. But this leads back to the question whether the regulation of collective bargaining triggers a First Amendment test if it is so saturated with speech of public interest. And if collective bargaining is subject to the imperialism of the First Amendment, why not contract law in general?

What the main goals of the First Amendment might be is much contested. But you would have to get up very early in the morning to suggest that the First Amendment is best interpreted to regulate collective bargaining in any fashion, let along with the intrusive heavy duty tests that inevitably follow from its applications.

God and the Multiverse

In a broad sense of that term, reading Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe is akin to a religious experience.  I would not be at all surprised if Tegmark felt a similar sense of excitement in writing this massively learned yet wonderfully accessible book.  For by the book's close, he found himself talking about the universe as a form of transcendence and advocating for the solemn ethical responsibilities humanity must undertake as likely one of the very few self-aware species in the galaxy.

On the level of my own religious perspective, I was deeply moved by Tegmark's work.  But it is probably best first to recapitulate the main points of his argument.  His claims go beyond ambitious -- they are truly audacious.  Everything, he says -- our universe, and the many other universes with which it coexists -- are not only explainable mathematically but are in fact mathematical structures.

This sounds like a book that only a nerd would love.  But that is not true.  As Tegmark builds his narrative he makes his case in lucid prose, remarkably free of the equations and calculations that only a select few will ever comprehend.  He nevertheless succeeds in building a compelling case that moves gradually from what we all know to be true about the universe until it finally pushes hard against the outer boundaries of human knowledge.

He begins with a couple of important premises.  First, where cosmology is concerned, we must always be prepared to be counter-intuitive.  It is not obvious to the casual observer that the earth should be round, or that it is in constant motion around the sun, or that all matter is composed of minutely-small subatomic particles.  Careful observation, however, coupled with the willingness to break free of the conventional and obvious ways of thought, made these insights possible.  Second, Tegmark insists that we should realize that the limits of what we know are constantly expanding -- the solar system was once the limit of our understanding, then the galaxy, and now the universe as demarcated by the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang.

But, Tegmark continues, there is a reality lying beyond these observable limits.  Theoretical physics points to the existence of a vast number of other universes that may never come into contact with ours but whose existence we may nevertheless infer.

Tegmark commences his explanation for how these other universes came to be with a discussion of "cosmic inflation."  Inflation began as a hypothesis that sought to explain certain irregularities in the standard account of the Big Bang.  It still rests upon a well-grounded assumption:  "that once upon a time, there was a tiny uniform blob of a substance whose density was very hard to dilute" (p. 100).  Because this primordial matter could not dilute, because its density remained nearly the same as it grew larger, it was capable of explosive, exponential growth.  And while inflation remains a hypothesis today, empirical verification of its role in the formation of our universe is inching closer.

Our observable universe, Tegmark indicates, took its shape as inflation began to slow at least in our small corner of existence.  But inflation, which is incessant, could reasonably be assumed to continue elsewhere and is still bringing into being countless other universes.  And since its growth is exponential, the number of these other universes continues to double and to double again at an ever-increasing pace.  Not all, or even most of these universes, likely obey the same physical laws as ours, and most are probably hostile and forbidding places.  Still, their existence can be inferred from what we know about our own.

It is through inflation that we gain an awareness of the vastness of the cosmos and what Tegmark calls "Level One" and "Level Two" universes.  Level One universes are those universes, scattered throughout the cosmos, whose physical laws resemble our own.  We may never encounter them directly since inflation continually expands the distances between us and them, but it is likely that a process which continues to spawn universes at an exponential rate will bring into being other universes similar to our own.  Level Two universes, like the first type, are also created by inflation, but are governed by different effective rules of physics than our own.

After probing the depths of space, Tegmark directs the reader's attention to the smallest bits of matter -- subatomic particles.  It had been known for nearly a century that the smallest particles -- electrons and the like -- did not obey classical rules of physics.  Had they, all atomic structure would have collapsed soon after the Big Bang.  Something was responsible for preserving atomic structure, but what, exactly?

Tegmark draws on theories of quantum mechanics to assert that subatomic particles possess the capacity of being in more than one place at the same time, a phenomenon called "superposition."  The movement of such particles, furthermore, is governed by the "wavefunction," which "describes the extent to which [they're] in two different places" (p. 179).

Why, then, do we not observe such behavior in our daily lives?  The traditional answer, proposed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is that the act of observation collapsed the wavefunction "so that you find the object only in one place" (p. 178).

Tegmark, however, rejects the traditional account in favor of a more radical version of quantum mechanics.  Why can't we more directly observe this sort of subatomic behavior?  It has nothing to do with what we as observers bring to the process.  Rather, it is the interaction of particles with one another that causes them to appear fixed in a process known as "decoherence."  But, in optimal circumstances, it has become possible to detect electrons being in two places at one time:  "if you pump out as many air molecules as possible with a good vacuum pump, an electron can typically survive for about a second without colliding with anything, which is plenty enough time for it to demonstrate funky quantum-superposition behavior" (p. 199).

These conclusions lead Tegmark to endorse Hugh Everett's controversial "many worlds" theory -- that in a process that remains undetectable subatomic particles "hive off" and bring into being new worlds that are almost exact copies as our own but that might differ in some crucial respect.  Thus in some worlds we might be dead while in others we are the kings and queens of some exotic land.  These many worlds Tegmark labels "Level Three" universes.

Tegmark has now prepared his readers for the final step in his reasoning.  Subatomic particles, he asserts, are mathematical structures.  And if they are mathematical structures, then everything which they support and form and order must also be a mathematical structure.  Thus Tegmark is led to his "mathematical universe hypothesis."

Having now reviewed Tegmark's claims, I'd like to return to the dimension of religion.  I am a Christian with some specialized training in ancient and medieval philosophy.  And I find in Tegmark's arguments echoes of some very old ways of explaining existence.

The Greek philosopher Democritus (c. 460-370 BCE) proposed that all of existence was formed of invisible atoms. He even suggested the possibility of a multiplicity of worlds and universes that might be found on the far side of the firmament of stars we see in the night sky.  By the second and third centuries BCE, we find the Stoics suggesting that this body of scientific knowledge reflected the existence of a God who was reason.

Early Christian writers borrowed this idea and made it a backbone of their own understanding of the universe.  God is reason.  Hence no science is alien to God.  Many great medieval minds would have concurred -- thinkers like Albert the Great (c. 1200-1280) and Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175-1253) among many others.  (None of this is to diminish the Church's role in sometimes violently stifling scientific inquiry as when Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake.)

When I read Tegmark, I see traces of this very old way of understanding the divine.  What else is mathematics but reason in its pure form?  This is a commitment I share.  God is reason.  And since God is reason, there is no branch of inquiry where a believer should fear to tread.

This traditional account of God as reason has been obscured in a contemporary American context that is convulsed between dueling schools of fundamentalism -- simplistic, literal-minded religious zealotry on the one hand, and cool dogmatic atheism on the other.  We must revive our commitment to a God that is reason if there is to be any hope of reconciling religion and science.

But if God is reason, there is yet one more thing that the Scriptures add.  For revelation tells us that God is also love.  While mathematics may tell us the form and shape and logic of all existence, it is as yet incomplete without love.  For it is love that makes humanity a community, that calls for self-sacrifice and the sublimation of the personal for the good of something larger.  If, as Tegmark argues, human life has meaning and significance even in the face of cosmic vastness, it is because we are, at least in our better moments, cooperative creatures capable of loving our neighbors as we do ourselves.

Cross-posted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/god-and-the-multiverse_b_5652406.html