(Photos from the same place seen here.)
(You can read the larger context of the quote — by Kahlil Gibran — here.)
January 16, 2010
"When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music."
(Photos from the same place seen here.)
(You can read the larger context of the quote — by Kahlil Gibran — here.)
Another late night in the Crazy Water Café...
... where we never rest, but we don't work very hard either.
Should conscientious public servants resign when their job conflicts with their religious principles?
There's been a lot of talk about Martha Coakley's blunt statement that those who want to adhere to religious scruples against abortion and birth control "probably shouldn't work in an emergency room." I put up a long post about it earlier today, and I'm not going to repeat myself here. The point of this post is to compare Coakley's statement to something John F. Kennedy said about the conflict between public service and religion back when he was running for President and questions were raised about his Catholic religion:
Is an emergency room employee a "public servant" to whom Kennedy's resignation imperative should apply? That job is not an "office." You aren't elected to it, but you are, by taking that job, holding yourself out as ready to perform the duties associated with it. Is it right for you to take exemptions for your own sake at the expense of the public you were hired to serve? Maybe your need for an exemption from part of the job is a conflict between personal and public interests that should lead you — if you are conscientious — to resign.
I think Kennedy's imperative becomes too harsh at this point. For one thing, there is a long tradition of religious health care workers serving the public. There is a special energy and altruism that comes from religion that we shouldn't want to lose, even as government money and mandates reach deeply into health care. Nor should we want to alienate and marginalize citizens who belong in the mainstream of American life. Even those of us who believe in the importance and the right of access to abortions and birth control should want to find ways not to brutalize these workers. We shouldn't want to demand that they give up their livelihood unless they are willing to commit what they believe is murder. I hardly think John Kennedy meant for his vision of the separation of church and state to include something so perverse.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all....
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.So, according to JFK, the President is supposed to make decisions "in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates," and if, because of religion, he can't do that, he should resign. Kennedy doesn't limit his resignation imperative to the presidency. Such a limit would make sense, as there is only one President, and the nation's reliance on his judgment and action is extreme and unique. Kennedy applies his imperative to "any ... public servant." If you take a public service job, that is, then what you owe the public is service according to the public interest "without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates."
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise....
Is an emergency room employee a "public servant" to whom Kennedy's resignation imperative should apply? That job is not an "office." You aren't elected to it, but you are, by taking that job, holding yourself out as ready to perform the duties associated with it. Is it right for you to take exemptions for your own sake at the expense of the public you were hired to serve? Maybe your need for an exemption from part of the job is a conflict between personal and public interests that should lead you — if you are conscientious — to resign.
I think Kennedy's imperative becomes too harsh at this point. For one thing, there is a long tradition of religious health care workers serving the public. There is a special energy and altruism that comes from religion that we shouldn't want to lose, even as government money and mandates reach deeply into health care. Nor should we want to alienate and marginalize citizens who belong in the mainstream of American life. Even those of us who believe in the importance and the right of access to abortions and birth control should want to find ways not to brutalize these workers. We shouldn't want to demand that they give up their livelihood unless they are willing to commit what they believe is murder. I hardly think John Kennedy meant for his vision of the separation of church and state to include something so perverse.
"Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?"
Martha Coakley blunders horribly/hilariously, either not knowing who Curt Schilling is or — if you believe her spokesman's explanation — making the dumbest "very, very deadpan" wisecrack in political history. If it's any consolation, Martha, I didn't know who Curt Schilling is either. Bloody sock sounded interesting. I had to look it up. Now, would you excuse me? I cut my foot before and my shoe is filling up with blood.
Let's take a careful look at what Martha Coakley said about abortion and religious freedom.
This dialogue — with interviewer Ken Pittman — took place on the radio last Thursday:
Now, Coakley said "under the law and under Roe v. Wade." By "the law" she could have meant the law that might be passed. The new statute might require health care workers to provide abortions. But the question is whether she would vote for that law. It doesn't make sense to say I'd vote for it because after it passes it will be the law and then individuals couldn't decide they don't want to follow it. The question is whether she would vote for that law, so slipping "the law" in there with Roe v. Wade was — if not a mistake — a trick to make you think a requirement was already in place.
Yet even if a law were already in place requiring health care workers to participate in abortions, there would be an argument that the right to the free exercise of religion trumps or should trump that requirement. There would be a legitimate conflict in the law that politicians would have opinions about, and it would be wrong to portray the workers as people who merely want to say they are above the law. Just as the right of privacy trumps laws that ban or impose harsh barriers on the access to abortion, religious freedom rights might trump some laws that require abortion services. It isn't lawless to prefer religious freedom. It is a position about what the law is or should be. It is the very question under discussion as the people of Massachusetts decide who, in the future, will have the power to vote on what the law is.
It is, in fact, permissible under the current interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause to make a general rule like this and impose it on people who will have to violate their religion or quit their jobs. There are also federal statutes — like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — that give people a higher level of protection for their religious freedom, so that they do get special exemptions from generally applicable laws. So it's up to a Senator to have a position on what that law should be. A Senator will also have a vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices, and that will have an impact on what the constitutional religion clauses mean in the future. Coakley has revealed how she balances free exercise and establishment clause values, and voters should take note.
It is especially important to think about these values in the context of an expanding government role in areas that were traditionally left to the private sphere — medical care, for example. It's the separation of church and state, so the dimension of the state is very important. A legislator who wants the state to run more of the economy and wants a strong separation of church is threatening to have a much greater effect on religious freedom than a legislator who believes in the strong separation of church and state but also believes in small government. Now, I want to give Coakley credit for bluntly stating the import of her position: You can have your religious freedom, but you'll have to give up your job. That elicits a "wow." That is, the truth is a slap in the face.
Tomorrow, the (purportedly) honey-tongued Barack Obama comes to Massachusetts to promote Coakley. I hope he submits to questioning and is asked what Pittman asked Coakley. Presumably, his position is the same, and presumably, he can say it in a less "wow"-eliciting way. But the truth is out, and his words — however elegant — can be distilled into the straight, stinging You can have religious freedom. You probably shouldn't work in an emergency room.
Pittman: Would you pass a health care bill that had a conscientious objector [sic] toward certain procedures including abortion.She's a lawyer, and she ought to know that Roe v. Wade — along with other abortion cases — does not require services. There is a world of difference between having a right to do something and having the power to make other people do things for you as you try to exercise that right. If you don't know the difference between those two things, you don't understand how rights work. Other people have rights too. Refusing to perform an abortion is not a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.
Coakley: I don't believe that would be included in the health care bill. I don't understand exactly what the question is. I would not pass a bill, as Scott Brown filed an amendment, to say that if people believe that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that question is no.
Now, Coakley said "under the law and under Roe v. Wade." By "the law" she could have meant the law that might be passed. The new statute might require health care workers to provide abortions. But the question is whether she would vote for that law. It doesn't make sense to say I'd vote for it because after it passes it will be the law and then individuals couldn't decide they don't want to follow it. The question is whether she would vote for that law, so slipping "the law" in there with Roe v. Wade was — if not a mistake — a trick to make you think a requirement was already in place.
Yet even if a law were already in place requiring health care workers to participate in abortions, there would be an argument that the right to the free exercise of religion trumps or should trump that requirement. There would be a legitimate conflict in the law that politicians would have opinions about, and it would be wrong to portray the workers as people who merely want to say they are above the law. Just as the right of privacy trumps laws that ban or impose harsh barriers on the access to abortion, religious freedom rights might trump some laws that require abortion services. It isn't lawless to prefer religious freedom. It is a position about what the law is or should be. It is the very question under discussion as the people of Massachusetts decide who, in the future, will have the power to vote on what the law is.
Coakley: And let's be clear, because Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in and had been raped.Coakley is choosing to press forward on the importance of abortion and contraception rights. It can be effective political argument to focus on rape victims. (Remember "Rape Gurney Joe"?) I imagine Coakley believed at this point that she was making a powerful argument that would win political support and make Scott Brown look like an unsympathetic lout and/or a right-wing extremist. But that was to be blind to the appeal of religious freedom.
Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. You don't want to do that.In American constitutional law, we have a proscription of federal laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is difficult to coordinate the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and anyone who serves in the United States Senate will need to have some idea of the meaning of both clauses. Coakley invokes the "separation of church and state" as if it has obvious meaning and a simple reminder should end the debate. But the meaning of religious freedom in America has been the subject of endless debate, a Senator will be an important participant in that debate, and the issue right now is whether Coakley should be a Senator.
Coakley: No, but we have a separation of church and state here, Ken, let's be clear.
Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Coakley: Uh, well, uck, u, uk, the, the law says that people are allowed to have that. And so then you.. you can have religious freedom. You probably shouldn't work in an emergency room.
Pittman: Wow.Why the horrible stammering? The followup is utterly obvious. The answer should have been carefully prepared and couched in real sympathy for the workers who would be caught in the terrible dilemma between giving up their jobs and following their religion.
It is, in fact, permissible under the current interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause to make a general rule like this and impose it on people who will have to violate their religion or quit their jobs. There are also federal statutes — like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — that give people a higher level of protection for their religious freedom, so that they do get special exemptions from generally applicable laws. So it's up to a Senator to have a position on what that law should be. A Senator will also have a vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices, and that will have an impact on what the constitutional religion clauses mean in the future. Coakley has revealed how she balances free exercise and establishment clause values, and voters should take note.
It is especially important to think about these values in the context of an expanding government role in areas that were traditionally left to the private sphere — medical care, for example. It's the separation of church and state, so the dimension of the state is very important. A legislator who wants the state to run more of the economy and wants a strong separation of church is threatening to have a much greater effect on religious freedom than a legislator who believes in the strong separation of church and state but also believes in small government. Now, I want to give Coakley credit for bluntly stating the import of her position: You can have your religious freedom, but you'll have to give up your job. That elicits a "wow." That is, the truth is a slap in the face.
Tomorrow, the (purportedly) honey-tongued Barack Obama comes to Massachusetts to promote Coakley. I hope he submits to questioning and is asked what Pittman asked Coakley. Presumably, his position is the same, and presumably, he can say it in a less "wow"-eliciting way. But the truth is out, and his words — however elegant — can be distilled into the straight, stinging You can have religious freedom. You probably shouldn't work in an emergency room.
Charitable texting.
$5 and $10 donations are easy to make, and they really add up. It's a terrific way to include vastly more donors. It's not just that people have cell phones and the phone company already has all your credit card information, it's that it makes small cup-of-coffee size donations the norm.
Text the word "HAITI" to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross. And get on with your life!
Now, maybe you think charity should involve more reflection and attention to the object of charity. Maybe you think charitable donors should feel that they are giving something up for the sake of the less fortunate and be personally transformed by the act of giving. You know how people who make the effort to attend a long church service feel about the people who say, "I can pray anywhere!," "I can pray on the golf course," "I'll pray when I'm stuck waiting in line somewhere," etc.
Jesus said: "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." So do not let your left thumb know what your right thumb is doing. Text some charity and don't make any kind of deal out of it. Don't even let yourself think that you have done anything. There is good in that, and it's a good instantly achieved by everyone with a cell phone. You're only giving $5 or $10, so there isn't even anything to congratulate yourself about. When everyone just does this, without thinking, the charities get millions, and we have no reason to get puffed up about about our benevolence.
Text the word "HAITI" to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross. And get on with your life!
Now, maybe you think charity should involve more reflection and attention to the object of charity. Maybe you think charitable donors should feel that they are giving something up for the sake of the less fortunate and be personally transformed by the act of giving. You know how people who make the effort to attend a long church service feel about the people who say, "I can pray anywhere!," "I can pray on the golf course," "I'll pray when I'm stuck waiting in line somewhere," etc.
Jesus said: "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." So do not let your left thumb know what your right thumb is doing. Text some charity and don't make any kind of deal out of it. Don't even let yourself think that you have done anything. There is good in that, and it's a good instantly achieved by everyone with a cell phone. You're only giving $5 or $10, so there isn't even anything to congratulate yourself about. When everyone just does this, without thinking, the charities get millions, and we have no reason to get puffed up about about our benevolence.
January 15, 2010
A nighttime walk down 6th Street in Austin.
Here's what we saw from the sidewalk as we walked down 6th Street after the movie:
What movie? Why, it was "Girlie Night" at the Alamo Drafthouse, and — it was my birthday — we saw the 1997 cult classic "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion." For added birthday festivity, we sat in one of the 2 private balconies, in leather recliners, and ate chili and drank Guinness.
What movie? Why, it was "Girlie Night" at the Alamo Drafthouse, and — it was my birthday — we saw the 1997 cult classic "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion." For added birthday festivity, we sat in one of the 2 private balconies, in leather recliners, and ate chili and drank Guinness.
"I suppose, if the Congressional id is screaming for a way not to pass health care..."
"... the most obvious way that's left would seem to be this: a Senator bails (Nelson, most obviously) or if Coakley is defeated they just can't pass the bill before Brown takes her place. (Darn!) Any House-Senate compromise is thereby doomed by the lack of a 60th vote--the only hope becomesg [sic] getting the House to pass the Senate bill word-for-word (the Sudden Victory strategy). But just enough House liberals declare they can't stomach the Senate bill--on the grounds that the uncompromised Cadillac tax is unacceptable, perhaps, or the subsidies are too low, or that a public option is essential. Presto, a train wreck."
Mickey Kaus.
Mickey Kaus.
"This country is not worth dying for..."
40 quotes that Right Wing News thinks exemplify "liberalism." I'd say they illustrate a theme among today's liberals that can and should be abandoned.
A "well-connected Democratic strategist" thinks Coakley is "is destined to lose."
"I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers.... If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout... So right now, she is destined to lose."
Interesting. When everyone knows turnout is important, how do polls affect what people do? Why do people lose "intensity" when they think their candidate is likely to lose? Do people lapse into the passive observation of what seems to be destiny — and forget that they are voters? Or is there something particular about the Coakley/Brown race, in that people assumed Coakley should easily win and never thought too much about her, never bonded with her or worked for her? Now that Scott Brown is surging, they are inert and fatalistic?
But what this unnamed strategist is really talking about is how we should interpret a Coakley loss:
UPDATE: Obama will go to Massachusetts.
Interesting. When everyone knows turnout is important, how do polls affect what people do? Why do people lose "intensity" when they think their candidate is likely to lose? Do people lapse into the passive observation of what seems to be destiny — and forget that they are voters? Or is there something particular about the Coakley/Brown race, in that people assumed Coakley should easily win and never thought too much about her, never bonded with her or worked for her? Now that Scott Brown is surging, they are inert and fatalistic?
But what this unnamed strategist is really talking about is how we should interpret a Coakley loss:
"With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.
Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.And Obama has decided not to travel to Massachusetts to help Coakley out. It's all about cutting her loose to sink on her own. Strange to give up and look ahead beyond the predicted loss when her vote is so crucial.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."
UPDATE: Obama will go to Massachusetts.
January 14, 2010
South 1st Street between Annie and Elizabeth.
An Austin walk.
(Enlarge.)
When you get to Elizabeth, eat here.
Bonus photo (by Meade), taken at Annie:
(Enlarge.)
When you get to Elizabeth, eat here.
Bonus photo (by Meade), taken at Annie:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
