Is Obama a Muslim?

Polls show that 30% of the American people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim - up from a previous 18%.  This belief is growing despite the very public and well covered uproar over Obama's controversial Christian pastor Jeremiah Wright during his presidential campaign, and despite Obama's repeated acknowledgments that he is a Christian.  Amazing!

If I were Obama, I would immediately go on national T.V. and ask the nation the following question.  "What if I were a Muslim?  Would that disqualify me from being president?  . . . (Long 10 second pause) . . .  If I converted to Islam this very afternoon, would that be grounds for opposing my reelection?  . . . (Long 10 second pause) . . . I'm going to ask the people of this nation to think about this question, and discuss it amongst yourselves, for one week.  In exactly one week, I'll return to this podium and give you my answer" (exit immediately).

Then it would be put up or shut up for the talking heads and their guests.  Is being a Muslim in any way relevant to Obama's qualifications to be president?  If it is, tell us how?  If it is not, why are we talking about it.  Why are we polling the question?

The fomentors of hate are hiding behind the loose connection in people's minds between Islam and Terrorism.  We need to force the haters to own this association publicly.  We need to force them to state their implicit biases explicitly.  If there is something wrong with being a Muslim, tell us what it is?  We're all ears.  If there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, then admit this publicly and shut up about it.

In other words, someone needs to shame them - publicly - and in so doing appeal to the rest of the nation's better angels.

The modern conservative movement is held together by money, hate, and fear - and hate requires an enemy.   Gays, illegal immigrants, muslim's - any group of "others" will do - as long as they can be characterized in a way that stirs fear - gays will seduce your children, muslims want to murder you, illegal immigrants are drug dealers.  Looks like conservative operatives have pushed all in while holding hate and fear hole cards.  Its a strategy that's destined to lose in the long run, but its capable of doing a lot of damage to our nation in the short run.  So its time to call their bluff.

And to think that these people consider themselves to be uber-patriots.  I guess they missed the discussion of "E Pluribus Unim" during 4th grade civics.

Joe H.

Mosque at Ground Zero - Update

This is an ideas/opinion blog. So, for what its worth, here are my thoughts on the "Mosque at Ground Zero” controversy.

First, the controversy has been very effectively framed by the opponents of the project. From a propaganda perspective, "Mosque at Ground Zero" is about as bad a brand name as a project could possibly be assigned. Those four words conjure and conflate the explosive (“ground zero”) fear, emotional pain, and nativist inclinations of our nation, with the horrors we’ve seen and endured during the last 10 years, in a spectacularly effective way.

That’s the Lawyer in me talking.

Of course, "Mosque at Ground Zero" is an inaccurate and misleading description of the proposed project. A Muslim Cultural Center with a gym, restaurant, classrooms, and a prayer room, located two blocks away from the site of the fallen towers, in an abandoned clothing warehouse, is what we’re actually talking about.

That’s the Philosopher in me talking.

But this just shows how important it is to frame the debate first. Once we’re talking about a “Mosque at Ground Zero,” facts and rationality are not going to make much headway.

That’s the Lawyer in me talking – and he won’t shut up!

All that said, what do I think about the Project, and how we should handle the controversy? First, I am not unsympathetic to those opposing the project because they find the idea offensive. I can see how a building a Mosque near the sight of the largest mass murder in the history of the nation – a murder committed by extremist Muslims in the name of Allah - would anger many people.

But their anger is misplaced. Islam is not Al Qaeda – Al Qaeda murdered our fellow Americans, not Islam. For many people, “Mosque at Ground Zero” connotes “Islam murdered our citizens and now wants to erect a trophy at the site commemorating their victory.” That’s why it is such an effective frame. But it is a lie. Islam did not attack us – a few of its most radical practitioners did. Perpetuating the conflation of Islam and Al Qaeda for political gain is despicable. And even if it weren’t despicable, it is seriously contrary to our national interest to tell a billion Muslims that we see every last one of them as an enemy.

Second, allowing the Muslim Cultural Center to be built near the site of 9/11 is the best way of communicating to the Islamic world that we understand the distinction between Islam and Al Qaeda. Refusing to allow the Cultural Center sends the precise opposite message. And what we communicate in this instance is a zero sum game.

Third, allowing the Center to be built near Ground zero is perhaps the best way of reminding ourselves what it means to be Americans, and what America stands for. It is a way of saying, and demonstrating, that America truly is exceptional – that we refuse to let our anger and fear extinguish our commitment to liberty and justice and freedom for all. What amazes me is that much of the opposition to the Center comes from the Christian elements of the GOP. Don’t these people ever read their bibles? Don’t they recall Jesus’ teaching that if you want to represent God to the world, the best way to do it is to do more than you are required to do – to go further, and to be better, than others expect or have a right to expect?

It angers me to no end that politicians, instead of calling us to be noble and embody American ideals, stoke and inflame our worst instincts. But to see supposed Christians (aka Newt and Sarah, and the Church that is planning a "Burn the Koran bonfire") do this absolutely floors me.

So there’s my view, for what it is worth.

Joe H.

UPDATE: The more I hear about this controversy, the more I agree with the sentiments expressed by Dick Cavat - I'm ashamed of us.

Fallibility

John Stuart Mill once wrote that anyone who would suppress dissent on any subject assumes his own infallibility - at least in so far as the subject in question is concerned. Practically speaking, his posture is, “why entertain further discussion, when I currently have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Indeed. Why would anyone?

Of course, no one will admit to thinking himself infallible. All of us concede precisely the opposite. But that doesn’t matter. As Mill pointed out, the vast majority of those who admit their own fallibility take no practical steps to account for it. Practical steps would include remaining open-minded. But they would also include active reflection on the quality of the reasons I have for believing what I believe, buttressed by my active inquiry when I discover those reasons to be suspect (or non-existent).

But how many people do any of this?

Actually, the situation is worse than Mill feared. People admit that they could be wrong, but often take extraordinary steps to avoid acknowledging error in their beliefs – at least in the beliefs that they care about. The issue of Gay marriage is a perfect example. No amount of evidence or force of argument is going to change the Protectmarriage.com crowd’s minds on this issue. They’ll continue to cite the same non-existent studies – which they weren’t willing (or able) to introduce (or defend) in court. They’ll accuse the Judge of bias – when his written opinion is a model of clarity and analytical rigor. They’ll defiantly declare that evidence vindicates their position and that the Judge systematically ignored the evidence – while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail to prevent the trial video from reaching the public.

Support for George W. Bush is another great example.

But I digress. Most of the time, this feature of human psychology doesn’t harm anyone. But the criminal justice system is one place where it does. This Interview with Peter Neufeld, founder of The Innocence Project, illustrates just how tragic this human tendency can be.

His answer to the final question is the best illustration of all.

Joe H.

George W. Bush - the Voice of Reason and Moderation?

With regards to the zenophobic Christianist uproar over a planed "Islamic Center" being built two blocks away from Ground Zero, I too must admit how suprised I am that a thought like "I miss George W. Bush" ever entered my head.

But it has.

Joe

Standing

This is pretty interesting. In the California Proposition 8 case, Judge Walker stayed his order striking down Proposition 8 – and reinstating gay marriage in California – but only until August 18, 2010. That is the deadline by which the Defendants must file an Appeal. His Order then pointed out, as no one but Judge Walker seems to have realized prior to his pointing it out, that the Defendants who wish to appeal probably lack “Standing” to file the appeal.

For all of you non lawyers, “Standing” is a judicial concept limiting a court’s discretion to hear a case. American courts are not allowed to hear a case unless both parties are properly before the court, and Parties are not allowed to bring a case unless they have standing.

Standing means that the party has some specifiable or quantifiable interest in the outcome of the case – that the outcome will affect the party’s rights and/or interests. A simple example is that a citizen cannot sue the U.S. government regarding its “enhanced interrogation policies,” no matter how much he or she disagrees with those policies, because, unless they personally have been subjected to the torture, the outcome of any such suit will not directly affect their individual rights or interests. (Imagine how powerful our courts would be if they were allowed to hear any case they wanted, brought by anyone willing to bring it; imagine how difficult it would be for the other branches of government to function if they could be sued by anyone who disagreed with their actions).

Back to Proposition 8. The Plaintiffs in the case were four private citizens - a male and a female same sex couple - who were denied marriage licenses on the basis of Proposition 8. These individuals clearly had standing to sue, because the outcome of the case directly effected their rights and interests. The original Defendants were the California State officials tasked with managing the issuance of marriage licenses. They, of course, had standing to defend, since the rules governing the issuing of marriage licenses had direct implications for their performance of their official duties.

No problem so far, except that that the named Defendants refused to defend Proposition 8. It was only after California’s Governor and Attorney General expressly declined to defend the suit that the Court allowed an organization called Protectmarriage.com to intervene and supply a defense. They did horrible job, by all accounts, but that’s another issue.

What matters is something that, until now, no one but Judge Walker appeared to realize -the Intervenor Defendants do not have standing to appeal. The outcome of the case does not appear to have any quantifiable affect on their rights and interests – which makes them improper defendants for purposes of an appeal. The fact that Judge Walker allowed them to intervene to Defend Proposition 8 does not give them standing to take the case forward. Only the State of California and the named Defendants have standing to file an appeal.

But they don’t want to appeal.

That Judge Walker is pretty shrewd. Game, set, match. Look’s like California is going to have to allow gays to tie the knot. That doesn’t mean the fight is over. At some point, someone is going to bring a federal challenge to a state ban on gay marriage in a place where the state officials will be eager to defend their state’s ban, and appeal any adverse decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. In fact, if I were an opponent of gay marriage, I’d immediately start looking for a gay couple in another state who wanted to sue and start that ball rolling.

Joe H.

"I Believe that Marriage is the Union of One Man and One Woman"

I've noticed that opponents of same sex marriage, when asked to state a reason for their opposition, frequently respond, "I believe that marriage is the union between one man and one woman." That belief, of course, is not a reason for opposing same sex marriage. For one thing, it is no longer even true, legally speaking, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. There are eighteen thousand same sex marriages in California alone. Nor does that statement supply any grounds for opposing same sex marriage. It is, at best, a restatement of one's position on the issue - a statement about what one believes (or wishes for), rather than a reason supporting that position or preference.

However, the statement has the look and feel of a reason. It was, after all, true, and obviously so, until very recently - at least in the modern Western world. Repeating that fact sounds like one is giving a reason. This allows opponents of same sex marriage to convince themselves, and others, that they are principled and reasoned opponents.

Well, let me put an end to that right now.

Suppose you asked me why I support including same sex couples within the institution of marriage, and I replied, "I believe that marriage is the union between two spouses." This answer, you will notice, is not only true in the way the first response was true, it remains true. However, I doubt that any opponent of same sex marriage will be persuaded by this statement, or think that it provides grounds for my position. Nor should they be persuaded. My response doesn't provide any grounds for my position - it simply describes marriage in a way that accommodates my position (or preference) that same sex couples be allowed to marry.

Of course, opponents of same sex marriage will say that my description of marriage is incomplete. They'll say that a complete description of marriage precludes marriage by same sex couples. But that response simply restates the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. My response would be that the opponents' description of marriage is wrong because it excludes people who can be married (same sex couples). But that response merely repeats my initial view that marriage is a union of spouses, be they of the same or opposite sex variety.

Do you see how neither of us is arguing?

So enough with the "I believe that marriage is the union of. . . " responses. They’re not reasons.

Joe H.

Free Speach and Knowledge

About 20 years ago, author/thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote a book titled "Kindly Inquisitors." The Book's illustrative examples are a bit dated, but its core defense of freedom of speech as the key to knowledge generation is still spot on.

If you've never read the book, I highly recommend it. But in case you just want to understand the basic argument, this 30 minute talk by Mr. Rauch provides an excellent outline of his argument.

Jonathan Rauch - FIRE's CFN 2010 from The FIRE on Vimeo.

Joe H.

Proposition 8 is Declared Unconstitutional

I just finished reading Judge Vaughn's decision striking down California's Proposition 8.  Proposition 8, you will recall, was a 2008 State wide referendum amending California's constitution so as to define marriage as a relationship between one man and woman. Proposition 8, which passed by a 52 to 48 margin, overturned a recent California Supreme Court Decision striking down the State's ban on same sex marriage.

One of the things I am thankful for is the tradition of Courts providing written opinions explaining the facts that came before them and the legal basis/rationale for their ruling. You can read the decision here, but before you do, let me offer a bit of guidance.

Judge Vaughn is the judge of a Federal District Court - which is a "trial" court. That's an entry level court. Trial courts are the courts in which witnesses appear and testimony is given under oath. Appelate courts do not hear testimony or admit new evidence. They review the decisions of trial courts for legal soundness. They confine themselves to arguments about the case, based on the testimony and evidence already introduced.

In this opinion, Judge Vaughn began by providing: (1) an initial description of the case and the purpose of the law suit - i.e. what kind of relief the plaintiffs were seeking; (2) the identities of the parties to the lawsuit, (3) the identity of the witnesses and the substance of the witnesses' testimony; (4) an identification of those witnesses that the Court found credible (and not credible) and an explanation as to why the Court found specific witnesses credible (or not credible).

After this initial discussion, trial courts typically provide what are known as: (5) findings of fact; and (6) conclusions of law. In this opinion, which is over 130 pages long, the vast bulk of the opinion is devoted to quoting and citing to the trial transcript and evidentiary exhibits to support the Court's findings of fact. I recommend that you read (1), (2), (3), (4) carefully, and then, when you get to (5), read the actual findings of fact (they are the numbered paragraphs) and just skim the citations to the record. That will save you a lot of time and energy. Then read (6) very carefully - that is the meat and potatoes of the legal argument.

As you probably have guessed, I think the ruling is spot on. But not because I favor allowing gays to marry. The equal protection and due process rationales Judge Vaughn offered against the ban on same sex marriage, grounded as they were in the evidence presented, are very compelling. It is remarkable how little evidence the Proponents of Proposition 8 introduced in defense of their position, And Judge Walker systematically demolished the arguments they did offer in support of Proposition 8. (The Proponents themselves had to intervene in the suit after California’s highest officials refused to defend Proposition 8).

It is also telling that the Proponents initially fought so hard to keep the trial from being broadcast while it was ongoing, and then fought equally hard to keep the video recordings hidden from public view during the ensuing appeal.

But I'll leave those of you hardy enough to read through the opinion to form your own opinion on the quality of the legal reasoning.

Enjoy yourselves.

By the way, if you refuse to read because you don't want to change your mind, ask yourself how you can expect others to read arguments in favor of your views if you refuse to read arguments in support of theirs?

Joe H.