The 1st Amendment: Part 1: Religious Liberty

The First Amendment

In the new tradition of almost timely posts, I've decided to renew my ongoing 27+ part series on US constitutional amendments.  Today we have part 2 (you can read part 1 here).  Luckily, unlike my first piece, I had somewhere to start with this one and enough to say that I will most likely break this into three posts.

The Text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you might have surmised from the title, I'm going to stick to religion today, speech, press, and assembly will just have to wait until another time.  This is not an expression of importance; in many ways I believe the freedom of speech to be the most fundamental of all rights; this is solely because of the number of current issues regarding religious liberty and how it can contrast with civil rights.

Public Prayers

First, a local case currently pending a decision from the Supreme Court, the Town of Greece v. Galloway (a more comprehensive breakdown can be found here).  In summary, the Town of Greece opens their town meetings with a prayer and generally invites a member of the local clergy to lead it.  Those leading the prayers were primarily Christian and so non-Christian residents are suing to either have the prayers ended or expanded by giving guidelines to those leading the prayers as to what would be appropriate.  Let me start with this; I'm not a particularly religious person and public prayers outside of a church service always leave me feeling a little out of place. That said, I also realize that these prayers are an inescapable fact of life.  Even as a secular society we have no shortage of public institutions invoking deities through prayer to open meetings or any of a dozen other types of gatherings.  As (and I can't believe I'm citing him) Justice Alito raised during the arguments, no prayer can possibly appease every religion, especially when atheists are included in the discussion.  Typically this is why prayers of this sort are expected to be as inoffensive as possible, and come from a variety of sources; something that the Town of Greece had been trying to do, but failed to follow through on. The Supreme Court decision is due back this summer, but it's unlikely to be anything earth shattering.  A sweeping ruling could ban all such public prayers, which would be a wildly unpopular decision, so I expect it will amount to little more than some type of enforcement of more diverse prayers.

Aside from being of local relevance, this case lets us talk about what will be a recurring theme. Where does my freedom to exercise my religion end and someone else's begin?  This isn't an easy question to answer and it becomes the central argument in most of these cases.  Does the city have a right to open their sessions with a prayer if they choose to?  Do the clergy leading the prayers have the right to do so without government oversight?  Do the citizens have a right to a government that does not favor any one religion?  The city probably does have that right; without some compelling reason higher governments shouldn't be dictating to local governments how to run their own meetings.  The clergy definitely have the right to non-interference; just the concept of the government dictating which types of prayers are publicly acceptable is clearly unconstitutional, even if it would resolve the immediate problem.  Finally, the citizens definitely have the right to a government that respects all religions.  So how do we balance the rights of the city, the clergy, the citizens?  Perhaps the best answer is really to give time to each religion represented in the city.  There will always be some who feel put off by however the meetings are started regardless of the prayer or lack thereof, so sometimes the best thing to do is cycle through making everyone uncomfortable occasionally.

Birth Control

Second, the first big national topic, Birth Control and Religion.  I'll leave the analysis of the specific cases to the more qualified and speak to the general principles involved (though, again, SCOTUSblog is a fantastic resource for the curious about both Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius and Sebelius v Hobby Lobby).  I find these cases fascinating in the abstract.  Do private companies have a right to operate based on religious principles?  And, if so, to what extent are they allowed to enforce those principles on those who work for them?

For the most part we, as a society, don't care when businesses operate on religious principles.  If they want to be closed on Saturdays or Sundays, or choose not to sell alcohol, or operate a Kosher or Halal kitchen, or any other manner of operation that is based on religious tenets, we rarely care either as customers or as employees.  Unfortunately, under the Affordable Care Act, we have to deal with address the implications of faith based private businesses.  If we accept the premise that a business can be faith based regardless of their actual business, we must decide how far they are allowed to enforce that faith and we need to deal with the conflict between non-discrimination acts and those religious liberties.  Hobby Lobby can't refuse employment based solely on the religion of the applicants which means they must have some employees who do not share their religious beliefs.  Even if we accept that the owners are running their business based on their faith, do they have the right to limit the health care options of the employees who do not share those beliefs?  Must everyone who works for them adhere to their religious standards?  In any other situation this would be an almost obvious no, but because the ACA is so controversial, this is seen as another avenue to attack an unpopular (at least in some groups) law. Imagine if, instead, the employees were being required to maintain a religious diet, or join in management led prayers daily.  A common argument is that this is a slippery slope to religious exemptions for other types of medical coverage, but I see this as a slippery slope to employment discrimination.  If businesses are allowed to be adherents to a religion then they would be able to argue for all rights therein, not just this specific scenario.

Photographers and Cakes

Third, we're going west to the gay weddings, photographers, and cakes.  Arizona made big news twice, first for passing a deeply unsettling bill and second for vetoing it.  Arizona made the big news, but they weren't the only state with a bill of that nature on their agenda and they won't be the last.  This has also been couched as a "religious liberty" question.  Since the business owners are good faithful Christians who can't, in good conscience, provide services to gay couples, they must refuse service based on religious grounds and they argue that they should have that right based on the 1st amendment.  Unlike the first two questions, I don't believe that this is a question of religious liberty.  The first is a clear question of Establishment (City vs Citizens), while the second is definitely a case of Free Exercise (Company vs Employees).  This last situation is, at least in my opinion, a question of business rights vs consumer rights regardless of religion.

Some business owners would like the right to decline service to certain customers.  These are primarily service businesses and they are largely basing their current claims in religious beliefs.  Unfortunately I think this misses the fundamental question: Do businesses have a right to deny services to customers?  In most cases they don't unless there is a key business interest in that denial.  In that sense, it may circle back as a question implied by the Birth Control exception cases.  Does maintaining religious beliefs constitute a key business interest?  That's a tough argument to make since religions generally believe in individuals living properly rather than businesses.  A person might find salvation, but their bakery won't be joining them in heaven.  That said, I'm not entirely convinced that businesses should be required to serve individuals that they disapprove of.  Typically a business functions best by providing their services to everyone regardless of their particulars, but if they choose not to, that seems like a decision best defended under Freedom to Assemble rather than Freedom of Religion.

The Point?

So what is the point of all of this?  Much like the point I reached in The 2nd Amendment post; the point is that we're thinking about rights in ways that our bill of rights was never designed for.  Our founders wanted to ensure that we would not be citizens of a country with a new State Religion.  We were to be free of both the Church of England and the Pope.  We were to be free to exercise our own religious beliefs, whatever they may be.  Well we have that.  We live in a society where the government does not tell us which religion we must be members of and does not arrest us for exercising our own beliefs.  Everything beyond that, be it liberal or conservative, is trying to find a justification in a document where none was intended to meet our current needs.

Anthropogenic Global Warming An Important and Irrelevant Argument

Welcome to week 2 of my "tell me what to write about" challenge (all requests accepted, but try not to get too far outside my wheelhouse).  My topic this week was "the Humboldt squid".  When I reminded them that I don't even know how many tentacles (arms?) a squid has, I was given a reprieve with a nice light topic like global warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming

First let's break down the concepts before we talk about why it's important and what makes it irrelevant.  So what is anthropogenic global warming?  In short, it is an average increase in global temperatures caused by human activities.  This doesn't mean that an exceptionally hot summer or an exceptionally cold winter proves or disproves anything.  The key word, often forgotten, is Global.  If three quarters of the world is warmer than normal, it really doesn't matter that I'm currently shivering.  (It does, however, make me hate them ever so slightly.)  All told, this isn't really a difficult concept to understand, to relate it to a house, if you turn the heat on in 3 out of 4 rooms, the house is getting warmer even if the poor sucker in the guest bedroom is freezing.

So why is this controversial?  The arguments generally come in three varieties: "Is it happening?", "Are we causing it?", and "Is it a bad thing, or how bad will it be?".

Is it happening?

Yes.  That's really all I'm going to say on this one.  You can argue about the causes; you can argue about the severity; you can argue about the effects; but this one really needs to be dropped.

Are we causing it?

Probably.  Most of the prevailing science points that way and most of the counter arguments are coming from those with vested interests in proving that we aren't causing it or from people radically opposed to science in general.  But more on this later.

Is it a bad thing or how bad will it be?

This gets complicated, but the best answer I can give is "probably" and "we're not sure".  It's probably going to be a bad thing for much the same arguments as above, but also due to the fundamental principle that change in an environment is generally a bad thing for the things that are currently living in said environment. Nature, humanity included, does not adapt quickly to changes in their living conditions.  Humans are amazingly resilient creatures, but we rely on technology to adapt our locations to our needs.  Areas that rarely see snow are traumatized by even small amounts where areas that get multiple feet per year don't even blink. Similarly areas that are accustomed to and prepared for hurricanes or earthquakes or heat waves are more than capable of handling them, but areas that aren't can be shut down entirely by what would be considered a common occurrence elsewhere.  As climates change more areas are going to have to adapt to more types of events, the only question is how much it will change and how severe those events will be.

How bad will it be then?  That's decidedly less settled.  Global climate models have come a long way in the last 20 years, but they're massively complex and still frequently wrong with their predictions.  We've been left with the extremes of "we're all going to die" and "maybe it'll even be a good thing" neither of which seem particularly credible.  The former incites unnecessary (though they would disagree with that) panic, while the latter implies that we should ignore it entirely and enjoy the warmer weather.  As with most things, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, more on a scale of "annoying" to "severely unpleasant".

Why this is all Irrelevant

Now that I've finally gotten the background out of the way, I can get to the point.  None of it matters.  Don't give me that look, yes I'm serious, and no I'm not crazy.  I'm not trying to argue that Global Warming is irrelevant, just that the arguments about it are.  The reason is simple.  The things that we should be doing to stop Global Warming are things we should be doing anyway for much less controversial reasons.

Let's start at a personal level (for reference, the EPA actually has a site with a list of things individuals can do).  First, using energy efficient bulbs and appliances.  Regardless of one's views on climate change, there is a near universal acceptance that using less energy (and spending less money on it) is a good thing. New bulbs and new appliances use less energy, last longer, provide the same quality, and in the end cost less than the inefficient products that they replace.  The same thing goes for heating, cooling, and insulation.  Who cares if you don't believe in Global Warming when everyone believes in paying less in utilities.  In transportation (and more on this in the next level up) mass transit should be a good idea because it's cheaper than commuting.  Alternatively, for relatively short commutes, bicycling should be a good idea because it's better for our health.  Growing our own fruits and vegetables should be a good idea, not because the transportation of produce is causing the ice caps to melt, but because they're cheaper (and in my opinion, more delicious) that way.  Obviously most people don't have the time (or space) to grow enough food to be entirely self sufficient, but that isn't the point.  There is plenty of room between every house having a white picket fence and 2.5 SUVs and an agrarian society and good, self-serving, reasons to take a few steps in that direction.

So after the personal comes the municipal.  Towns and cities aren't making environmental policies on the grand scale; they don't set CAFE standards or set up cap and trade markets; but they do have impacts and motivations similar to the personal level.  If we want to reduce vehicle emissions, then towns and cities need to give people non-car alternatives for feasible transportation.  That means bike lanes and trails that go places that people want to get to (that also promote public health) and public transportation (that also saves on congestion, parking, and can be revenue generating).  If we're worried about offsetting emissions with carbon sinks, they can promote parks and green spaces (which again, promote public health and community building), tree plantings (just to make an area look nicer, which can raise property values) or community gardens (which can brighten up downtrodden neighborhoods as well as provide under-served communities with much needed fresh produce for public health reasons).

I'll address the last two levels together, state and federal policy.  A lot of this comes down to energy and transportation policy, though obviously they can also support green spaces and parks at a larger level as well for the same reasons as the cities and towns.  So why should they support things like more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels or alternative energy sources if not to reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming?  Simply because it's good policy.  We have more people driving more, using more fuel, and using more energy than ever before.  Regardless of your views on the impacts, these are all limited resources.  Even if you believe that there's no urgent need for alternatives, we have people who are capable of doing the research now and, when or if they're successful, they may come up with a vehicle that meets all of our current needs in ways that are cheaper and easier for the consumers.  The same goes for alternative energy.  We should be researching solar and wind because it's there and because it gives us another option for generating energy.  We should also be researching nuclear and cleaner coal and cleaner natural gas and anything else that comes along.  The more options we have, the more secure, and less expensive, our energy becomes.

All told, this is the final point. We don't need to argue about Global Warming.  Climatologist will continue to research it and other researchers will continue to figure out how to stop it.  In the end, if it is truly so severe that we need direct action (here I'm referring to some of the more outlandish plans, like seeding the clouds to thicken them and cool the planet) it won't matter whether this is anthropogenic or natural, we'll take action to sustain society.  In the meantime, we should all be taking steps to reduce our energy consumption; even if you don't believe we're affecting the climate, it's still a rational fiscal and health decision.

Ukrainian Maidans and Why We Should Care About Them

Ukraine

In keeping with my tradition of timeliness (which, in my defense, is improving), we're going to talk about Ukraine, the situation therein, the history thereof, and why it matters to us.  There are a number of reasons that this is a challenging post for me to write.  First, it turns out I don't know that much about Ukraine that doesn't involve a Risk board.  Second, I'm not well versed in foreign policy or the relevant entanglements that the US has in Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  I'm sure it was included in the things that I was taught, but my true love was energy policy and the rest of the world fell into a bucket with economics of "things that are important that I hope someone else is caring about.  That said, when I asked for a topic, I was given a choice between Ukraine and Venezuela, so here we are.

As it turns out, in researching for this post, the little that I do know about Ukraine is not entirely useless knowledge.  [Token side note, Ukraine is typically considered to be derived from the word for "border" as stated by basically everyone who has written or spoken about the situation in the last month.]  Let's start with the Risk board.  Situated neatly as the entirety of Eastern Europe, Ukraine serves as the buffer between Europe and Asia while technically being part of Europe and, while Europe is relatively secure with just their own territories, Asia is essentially uncontrollable unless you also control Ukraine.  [Second side note, it is officially "Ukraine" not "The Ukraine" since 1991.]  While Risk is certainly not the same as reality, the need and desire for Russia to control or influence the country bears a striking parallel, as does the lack of interest from Europe.  Europe is perfectly happy with a Ukraine that is free, independent, and doing it's own thing while Russia really needs a Ukraine that is actively friendly toward it, if not outright dependent.

At this point, it is worth noting that this type of conflict in this region is not new. The Ruin of the 17th Century, The Great Northern War of the 18th Century, The Crimean War of the 19th Century, and the Iron Curtain post WWII in the 20th century.  All of these conflicts or arrangements were, at least in part, over who would control the borderlands.  Come to the present and Ukraine is finally coming into it's own.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have been coming in to their own.  They have substantial productive farm land, the third largest total area in Europe, and the 9th largest population.  More importantly, they're one of the few economies in Europe that has been growing consistently since the last crash that hit all of Europe in 2008.

Maidans

So if that's a brief (and probably overly simplified, if not outright wrong) summary of Ukraine, what are the Maidans?  In short, the Maidans that we're talking about are the current protests.  They have been named after the central square in Kiev that has been a focal point for the current movement (as well as most of the ones in the last 30 years, it's a popular place to protest in Ukraine), the Maidan Nezalezhnosti.  So why are they protesting?  That gets complicated, but the short answer is because half of Ukraine wants to take support from Europe while the other half wants to get the support from Russia. The Ukrainian government had been leaning toward Europe, but that angered Russia who started withholding their trading opportunities.  That dramatically hurt their economy which led to a reversal to accept support from Russia instead of Europe.

As it turns out, both sides had strings attached to their financial support.  Europe tied their support to laws requiring Ukraine to become a freer nation, and Russia tied theirs to not being friendly to Europe.  I would imagine that this is a bit like finding oneself trying to choose between the pretentious snob who wants to tell us how we can be a better person and the insecure bully who will take his toys and leave if you're friends with anyone other than just him.  Ukraine is stuck in the middle where what it probably needs is to just be left alone to pull itself together as a modern nation and not be controlled by either side.  The protesters against the Russian influence appear to be of a mind that at least the snob doesn't make threats when he doesn't get what he wants, making Europe the better choice for support.

Then things got messy.  Ukrainians who favored Europe protested, and Russia, for lack of a better term, invaded.  Why Russia invaded is a matter of debate. Russia claims they're just there to keep the peace (or they're not there at all, those soldiers are just pretending to be Russian).  The popular view seems to be that they're hoping to scare enough Ukrainians that the protesters will lose and Ukraine will continue to seek support from Russia.  (Personally, I just think Putin is an egomaniac who wants to reclaim the lost territories of the USSR under the Russian flag, but that doesn't seem to be a popular view.)

Why Do We Care?

Why do we (being the US) care about Ukrainian political protests?  Primarily because Russia, even post cold-war, scares the crap out of us.  We don't want them too weak because we don't want chaos in a country with that many nuclear weapons, but we don't want them any stronger than they have to be either.  If they get stronger we are weaker by comparison.  Our interest is not in the Ukraine, it is in Westernizing the former Soviet Bloc with a long term goal of Westernizing Russia itself.  We don't want a Russia that we're just "not at war" with, we want them to genuinely like us so we don't have to worry about them going rogue (again, they have a lot of nukes).

Why does Europe care? Europe has more pragmatic interests in the area.  A stable Ukraine with a healthy economy and friendly European relations is good for everyone.  That said, Europe doesn't really care if Ukraine is also friendly with Russia.  The stronger the Ukrainian economy, the better for Europe, as long as Europe isn't blocked out of the deal entirely by Russian influence.

It's important for us to care about what is going on on the other side of the world, but it's more important for us to care for the right reasons.  This isn't about us or them. It isn't about whether we want Russia or Europe to come out better in the deal, this is about Ukraine getting the opportunity to decide for itself where it wants to stand and letting it make that decision without the threat of repercussions from outside influences.