This week in Scotusland

The Supreme Court confused me this week.  Not being a lawyer, I can't always follow the nuances of precedent and hair-splitting that goes on.  I pretty much go with what I understand to be "right" and then try to figure out whether we are progressing--or falling deeper into the black hole capitalistic fascism known as oligarchy.

Too much?  Ah, well.  My nuance button short-circuited with the Orlando murders.  That was too much for me to stand still for.

And speaking of which--one small step forward on gun control:  Voisine v. the United States expanded and/or clarified (can't tell which) the definition of reckless domestic violence so that persons convicted of such crimes are no longer eligible to purchase guns.  Not sure whether the Orlando shooter's domestic violence record would have prevented him from from purchasing guns had this ruling been in place before June 13, but the ruling will certainly help keep guns out of the hands of a few more people whose anger needs more management.

More press coverage went to the ruling on Texas' attempts to end legal abortion in this state with increasingly onerous (and medically unnecessary) requirements (link includes full text of ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt).  The implications of this ruling--against the State of Texas and for women's health, including the choice to end a pregnancy--will have repercussions in other states on these sorts of restrictions.  It won't end the culture war that surrounds a woman's right to control her own body without the interference of a third party.  Muslims (just for a commonly evident example) seek to begin their control of women's bodies on the outside with the requirement to veil.  Americans (dare I say Christians?) are more subtle, allowing the illusion of freedom and self-control in clothing choices (for now) while digging deeper to take over control of the essential female role of reproduction--making it pretty much mandatory every time a sperm can reach an ovum.  Rape, incest, pre-marital sex, marital rape--not important.  What is important is that sperm+ovum=government takeover for whatever uterus happens to be present.  (Well, I'm about to rant.  This is not my point today.  Deep breaths.)  I am personally long removed from this particular battleground--and yet I know it well.  This war isn't over.  More's the pity that we have to keep fighting the battles again and again when there are, frankly, bigger threats to the human race* than a medically safe procedure that some women choose to have for important personal reasons and others don't, also for important personal reasons.

One might think:  "So far so good" for this week's rulings.  What's the problem?  Look at McDonnell V. United States.  In a unanimous ruling, the eight-member Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for bribery.  The Court agreed that he took the [bribery] money and did some favors (set up meetings) for the CEO of Star Scientific, but that he did nothing official to benefit the company.  Huh?  Take the money, make connections, and then walk out the room--nothing to see here?  $167K is a lot of "nothing"--unless making those connections was "something."  Isn't this what lobbyists do for their clients?  Setting up meetings with decision makers, shining the glow of one's credibility over the meeting, encouraging through that credibility the use of that meeting for some purpose beneficial to the client?  Surely all those lunches weren't held because the chicken salad was good.  Just saying.

I'm old enough to understand that some weeks we win, in others we lose.  In the grand scheme of history, we are winning--climbing down from the trees, walking away from cannibalism and some gross forms of brutality.  We wear clothes, bathe sometimes, use language in place of weapons (sometimes).  What I would like to see is some moral progress.  Or at least some clarification--in progressive steps--that we are making the world a better place.  Let me try:

• We say that ethics begins with a choice.  We are committed to that.
• In Voisine we see the Court saying that recklessness doesn't just happen--one chooses to be reckless.  Taking a gun in your hand and then acting recklessly is choosing to act in a way that endangers others whether or not you intend to cause harm.  From my perspective, this sets a standard for gun owners that should be inherent in gun ownership and use whether or not domestic violence is at issue.  
• In Whole Women's Health, "choice" has another layer of meaning, but the Court's ruling maintains the notion that the law allows women to choose how to manage their bodies--including their uteri--and that other laws should not be made to prevent that choice by reducing access to means to exercise that choice.  (Would that they had done that in Hobby Lobby, but I digress.)  
• In McDonnell, the choice to accept [bribe] money was held as neutral.  It would have become criminal only with a subsequent action that was criminal--or something like that.  I'm not so happy with this outcome, because I think it will have the practical effect of adding more money to the executive side of government when there is already too much money in politics.  It does that because the brake of conscience that exists when one is concerned as much about the appearance of impropriety as the impropriety itself is removed.  If money+action is illegal, how do we allow money and still monitor for the actions that make that money illegal?  If money without action is legal, then why disclose (or monitor) the money? It's all a bit above my knowledge level, but my gut says that this kind of choice will be dangerous for the republic.

Yeah, we win some, we lose some.  Progress is hard to see close up.

---------------
*It's the action, not the location, that I see as imperiling us.  Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa in my lifetime; Europe and the rest of Asia in living memory.

Things that need to be said

After Orlando, there are few things that need to be said.

About the LGBT community.  The massacre at Pulse in Orlando was a hate crime.  It came as a shock to the LBGT community, which includes not only those who identify as LGBT, but also those who care about that community, whether because of family and friendship ties or because of their desire to live in an inclusive and ethical society.  The attempt to co-opt the grief and suffering that comes out of such an evil act for political purposes is despicable.  So, too, are the false flag condolences from those who helped create a climate of hate against the LGBT community. Thoughts, prayers, moments of silence are, at best, disingenuous from those who, in the days before Orlando sought to deprive the LGBT community of its civil rights and protections in this life while condemning them to horrors in the afterlife.

About gun violence.  

• Guns kill people.  
• Assault weapons are called that for a reason.  
• On the day of the Orlando murders, an additional 38 Americans lost their lives to gun violence and 8 more were wounded.  So far in 2016, there have been 24,087 "incidents" of gun violence which led to a total of 6,186 deaths and 12,616 injuries.  
• Here's a look at 330 mass shootings in 2015:

I am ignoring the voiceover at the end.  This isn't about politics.  It is about thinking that there is one "gun problem," one "solution," that the problem is only guns.  We need to broaden our thinking to look at all the issues with who has guns and why, not just the kinds of guns they have.

About extreme Islamic terrorism.  Is there a difference between the terrorism of one religious group over another?  Is there a difference between extreme terrorism and ordinary terrorism?  Did the men and women in the Pulse suffer more than the men and women of Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church?  Was their suffering less or more than the victims and survivors of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting?  These were all acts of terrorism.  I am not intending to downplay one event to highlight another.  I am not denying the role that Islam seems to have played in the Orlando shooter's motives--or justifications.  I am not in any way meaning to be flippant or casual about the terrible crimes that have been committed.

I am, however, interested in the concept of terrorism as a tool to influence behaviors and attitudes, as a weapon of war.  The goal of terrorism is not just to kill or maim; it is first and foremost intended to create terror.  To instill a fear in those who survive, who witness, who somehow become aware of the event--and its justification--so that they become wary of doing anything that might bring such a horror down on their own heads.  LGBT men and women would then stop being who they are--or at least acting openly in any manner that might seem authentic to their identities.  Rather they will go back in the closet, stop demanding outrageous "rights," straighten up.  Black people cannot change the color of their skin, but they can certainly stop making such a nuisance of themselves, again demanding outrageous "rights."  They need to "know their place" and stay there.  Women must stop seeking to gain control of their own bodies and lives, become once more subservient to men, and take up their proper roles as baby makers and sex objects.  No more "women's rights" nonsense.

We have heard the response from the LGBT community:  "In hope and defiance, we dance."  We see from Mother Emmanuel Church days of commemoration and positive action with the reminder: "Let all that you do be done in love."  From Planned Parenthood--well, they're still busy fighting all those politicians to keep the doors open.  I'll just say for them:  "Oh, hell, no!"  

And leave it there for now.  There's more.  I missed my self-imposed deadline for a post this week, but I have certainly been puzzling my way through recent events.  Yes, there'll be more.

Do we need a poster for religious freedom?

Dunno.  Really reluctant to enter the religious freedom wars as they are currently being fought in the US.  It's always something, isn't it?  But this little image has popped up in my email a couple of times,

and someone in the chain of discussion quipped that "it looks like we have a poster!"  Mebbe so, mebbe not so much, but I--of course--have a thing or two to say about that.

First, I'd like to look at what "freedom of religion" covers.  And, first, I'd like to point out that freedom of whatever passes for religion in one's belief system ought to include a belief system.  If we support freedom of religion (as I do), then there's got to be something there to have any freedom of [it].  So I'd make the first bullet:

• Believing in any being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

This would allow for religious freedom for people who choose to believe in one or more gods/higher powers/deities or who choose not to believe in such beings but rather in one or more central idea(l)(s) which allows them to experience and express the functional benefits that are associated with "religion."  Whatever those benefits might be, I'm not going to speculate here (although I probably will do another day).  I'm just pointing out that freedom of religion should actually include religion.

Taking the counterpoint, consider the last bullet in the first section:  "Choosing not to participate in religion at all."  That could be a nice way to say that it's OK to be a "None" and not affiliate with any religious group or belief system.  But what about the "Nones" who flat out disbelieve in any being as a focus of religious belief, the so-called "atheists, agnostics, and skeptics"?  They are not "participating."  Is their lack of participation what is protected by religious freedom while their lack of belief is not?   Can freedom of religion include freedom from religion?

Personally, I think it should.  Rationally, I'm hung up on language a bit.  Those prepositions--"of," "from"--have distinct meanings which should not be conflated.  So how do we get "of" to include "from" here?  

"Atheism" is, I would say, part of the spectrum of religious belief.  Religious belief is something of a continuum.  On one end there is an extreme of belief (in whatever) that thoroughly consumes the believer in all aspects of life and attention.  The stereotype of the ascetic hermit who meditates or prays almost unendingly, leaving as much as physically and mentally possible the present world, in order to focus on/join with the object of belief (whether being or ideal) seems to fit the one extreme.  In this case behavior is reflective of belief--that a focus exists and that acting in such a manner is the best way to worship/experience/achieve the desired state in relation to that focus.  On the other end of the continuum, there is an affirmative disbelief, a denial, that any being exists that can or should serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors. That may be reflected in behavior that simply ignores--by word and deed--any being of religious focus.  It may be reflected in both word and deed that denies the existence of such beings and, moreover, demands that expressions of belief in their existence be removed from the secular environment.  The latter is more extreme than the former, I think, but both still can be considered--no doubt under great protest by those who find themselves on this end of the continuum--as religious beliefs.

Yup.  I'm actually saying that atheists actually have religion (just as they have some really fine music, the blues included).  They have looked at other belief systems, rejected them, and hold their own (varied) beliefs about the nature of the universe (including its origin), the nature of humankind (including its origin), their personal values, future, end-of-life--and on and on through the gamut of issues that are explained (or not) by assorted religious belief systems.  Their beliefs don't--won't--look like the beliefs of other more organized religions, but they are religious beliefs because they focus on the issues that religions try to resolve.  "Religion" is, after all, merely a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought, just as "kinship" is a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought.  

So I'm thinking I'd modify the new first bullet by adding a new second:

• Believing in a(ny) being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors
• Believing that no being exists to serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

I need to think about the "ideal" part a little more, so I'm leaving it out of the negative end of the religious continuum, for the time being anyway.

What do you think?  Are atheists on the religious continuum?  If so, does our "of/from" problem disappear, since I'm basically saying that freedom of religion should make the affirmative disbelief in a supreme being a protected religious belief?  Religious practice is another subject altogether--about which more another day.

These aren't the droids you're looking for!

There's a lot of turmoil right now about who pees where.  If ya wanna use a public ladies' room, ya gotta have the correct genitalia.  The same ones that you were born with.  No changes allowed.  If ya wanna pee in a public men's room, the same rules apply.  But 'cept if ya got the boy kind of thingies and you are transitioning to be the gender--the person--that you know you are, there is no place to pee.  Go to the ladies room and get arrested.  Go to the men's room and risk assault, battery, and death.  I can imagine that the same risks apply to a female transitioning to male.  Go to a women's restroom dressed as a male* and someone will get flapped and call the cops.  Go to a men's room and, if discovered, risk assault, battery, and death.

Part of the problem could just be men's rooms.  Perhaps we should ban those. Nasty places.  Some men are so afraid of being labeled deviant that they can't even touch their whatsis long enough to aim.  Just ewwww!

The issue has gotten way out of hand.  There has been silly legislation.  Now there's a mass lawsuit in which, of course, Texas is participating.  Is this part of the election silliness that always seems to grip our nation because [internet] [TV] [talkies] [radio] [vaudeville] is making us less responsible adults?  One has to wonder, who will enforce this legislation?  Will public restrooms now require body scanners?  Will there be body searches to make sure that everyone who enters has the right stuff?  Good luck with that.  Any fool who gets between my diuretics and the bathroom door is just asking for trouble.

I speak lightly, but the issue is quite serious.  

• It's hate filled.  The amount of anger and pure venom shown for a human being who is already struggling with deep personal issues is sickening in its zeal.  Making a transsexual man or woman the object of such a conflict, such unnecessary humiliation**, is both perverted and, frankly, wrong.  Bad.  Double-plus not good.  Evil!
• It's dangerous.  Just by making this an issue, transsexuals are being singled out, made more visible than before.  This makes them a bigger target for abuse and assault.  It also lends legitimacy to the discrimination and abuse against trans men and women and even now makes it dangerous for an opposite sexed parent to take a child to the restroom.  In very real terms, it increases the risk of suicide in an already vulnerable population.  
• It's dumb.  While the aforementioned men's rooms are disgusting cesspools (yes, I know what a cesspool is, and, yes, I've been in a men's room--see "diuretics" above), women's rooms are devoted to privacy.  I ask you (women), have any of you ever seen another woman's Little Flower in a public restroom?  I suppose it's possible, but I can testify that I have never caught a glimpse of The Precious.  We have bathroom doors, and we close them.  We maintain private space by averting our eyes.  If a transsexual male has ever been in the same bathroom at the same time I have been, how would I know?  Some men's rooms don't have doors out of fear of Teh Gay, so I imagine men do see a lot of junk in their space.  With so much male hysteria on this whole subject, I have to wonder if we're not seeing some personal issues worked out in public media--with the potential for horrifying consequences.
• It has nothing to do with religious freedom.  Not even close.

The thing is, there didn't really seem to be such a big issue before North Carolina introduced its "bathroom bill."  Then other states started doing the same, and Congress got into the act with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (HR 4909), and the media*** still flaps about it non-stop.  However, not all of these bills were all about bathrooms.  They include other things, like eliminating requirements to pay the minimum wage or "prevailing wage."  Like protection of wildlife on federal lands.  Like assaults on clean energy.  As gapaul commented on a Religion Dispatches article:  "Do the Arguments Against Bathroom Equality Hold Water?":

Where did it come from? Read the entirety of the North Carolina bill, passed hurriedly before recess. It also says that private companies can't be required to pay minimum wage, and limits lawsuits against the government for all sorts of discrimination -- race, religion, disability, as well as sexuality.  Its almost like they want us arguing about bathrooms, and completely oblivious to the trail of corporate interest. And now that the whole country is facing a major election, isn't it interesting that a few states have decided its a good time to restart the Culture War? [emphasis added]

I do not at all want to minimize the importance of "the bathroom issue." It is very important for the men and women who are transsexual or transitioning as well as to those of us who care about human rights.  But I have to wonder, with gapaul, if we are not being deliberately distracted from other things that are also important.  

* Note that I have not found it unusual to encounter a male-dressed woman in public restrooms.  I have, rightly or wrongly, assumed that they were lesbians. Still, they might have been men transitioning to female.  No one seemed to get flapped before all of this brouhaha.
**Just to be clear, The Honorable Zoe Lofgren is a hero!
***Read the whole thing, but especially the Media Matters clip.  Hat tip to Trish Taylor for this reference.