Eric James Stone

He’s obviously been busy and therefore been unable to respond directly to my last argument on the subject (and it was very kind of him to do so earlier), but Prof. Volokh has a couple of new posts up about the Hindus and Homosexuals issue.

First, let me say that I have so far not addressed the question of the reasons why a Christian might oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I have not done so, because my perspective on this issue is shaped by Mormon doctrine, which provides reasons beyond those that other Christians have in their doctrine.

But Prof. Volokh still does not seem to acknowledge that what people generally consider to be religious freedom has only to do with choices about who or what to worship, and in what manner. (“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve…” Joshua 24:15.) Other choices involve other freedoms.

Christians in the United States have generally decided that religious freedom is important to them, and that therefore they will oppose laws that discriminate on the basis of religion. Prof. Volokh seems to be saying that Christians cannot logically do so while opposing gay rights.

Prof. Volokh sees inconsistency in the fact that some Christians want the secular law to enforce some things mentioned in the Bible and not others. Generally, such “inconsistency” results from varying religious beliefs about what God wants us to do in this day and age.

Prof. Volokh says:

Recognizing this distinction between religious laws that should be enforced by secular law and those that shouldn’t be so enforced shows that “Homosexuality is against God’s law, and therefore must be punished by the legal system” is not itself a sufficient argument. Christians who want the secular law to enforce such prohibitions thus have an obligation, within their own moral system, to provide some other reason besides Leviticus for their proposals. And it is that reason — which, incidentally, is probably more subject to pragmatic analysis than just a Leviticus-based argument would be — that should be the heart of the debate.

So, according to Prof. Volokh, Christians must justify their positions on secular matters with secular reasons, not religious ones. (Ironically, he says that Christian morality requires it.) Let’s call this the Volokh Rule.

While quoting scripture in public policy debates will do little to convince those who do not believe in that scripture (or who have a different interpretation of it), it is something that will have influence among those who believe similarly. Therefore, the Volokh Rule would make it harder for Christians to appeal to other Christians in the public debate.

I use the word “scripture,” rather than “The Bible,” for a reason. Mormons believe in modern-day revelation that is considered to be scripture. Most people do not believe in Mormon scripture, and would therefore find it unpersuasive.

In 1995, the leaders of the Mormon Church issued The Family: A Proclamation to the World. This proclamation reaffirmed that marriage is intended by God to be between one man and one woman. It also called upon citizens and officials to promote measures designed to strengthen the family.

Since that proclamation was issued, the Church has been heavily involved in opposing gay marriage.

Under the Volokh Rule, in debating the merits of legalizing gay marriage, Mormons’ opposition to the idea should not be based on the Proclamation. They must base their opposition solely on secular reasons.

Now, I could say that Prof. Volokh’s inconsistency argument doesn’t apply to Mormons. Mormons believe that God is giving revelations to a prophet living on the Earth today. Since modern revelation supports religious freedom for Hindus (and others), but opposes gay marriage, there is no doctrinal inconsistency.

But it’s not just the Mormons. Most Christian denominations have made determinations over what parts of the Bible God wants us to focus on at this time, and which commandments God wants to see us enact as part of our secular law. Ultimately, a Christian answers Prof. Volokh’s charge of inconsistency with “Well, that’s what I believe God wants.” It’s a matter of religious belief.

You know — the thing that religious freedom is about.

(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)

Finished watching Stargate SG-1, season 3 this morning. I’m really enjoying the series. I’ve never seen more than part of one episode on regular TV; I’ve watched the first three seasons on DVD.

Since the first two seasons ended with cliff-hangers, ending the third season with a cliffhanger would have been predictable. And so… they were predictable. Now I have to wait for season 4 to come out on DVD. Which it will, September 2. The question is, how long before I can get it through Netflix.com?

Of course, I will have something else to watch while waiting, since Angel, season 2 is coming out on the 2nd as well. And I pre-ordered that one from Amazon.

So, my prediction was off by a bit. Who cares? BYU won!

I think the defense played well. They only gave up two field goals (Ga. Tech’s only TD was off a blocked punt), and both field goals came when Ga. Tech was given great field position.

Berry was shaky in the first half, but played well in the second. We’ll see if he can come out strong next time.

I was pretty impressed by Ga. Tech’s true-freshman QB. He did well under pressure, so I think he’s got some potential for them down the road.

Football season!

I’m going over to my grandfather’s place soon to watch BYU’s first game of the season. I sure hope things turn out better than last season.

If we can’t beat Georgia Tech tonight, at home, with all the problems the Yellowjackets have been having, then we’re in serious trouble.

My prediction (and no, I won’t come back and edit it later to match the score):
BYU 38
Ga. Tech 17

Some students at Utah Valley State College claim that NASA’s report on the Columbia disaster is covering up the true cause.

… sensors in the wheel well near the left wing began to heat up at the same time sensors on the wing started going offline. MacLean and his students reached the conclusion that the left wing experienced a structural failure and broke off the shuttle due to overuse and fatigue. …

… MacLean, Seals and another student, Gordon Campbell Jr., believe NASA administrators are using the foam to deflect scrutiny of the age of the space shuttle fleet, which they say is a sign of mismanagement.

Well, I’m not big on conspiracy theories, and I don’t know the details of what they are alleging. However, one quote caught my attention:

“We don’t drive 20-year-old vehicles. We put them in space,” said Seals, a safety coordinator at Mountain States Steel who is majoring in technology management. “We had a classic car show at UVSC this spring. We should have had a space shuttle there.”

Seals (a student) reveals by this quote that he doesn’t know much about the aircraft industry. (And the shuttles are a lot more like aircraft than cars.)

Yes, most 20-year-old cars are in bad shape. But what about planes? Well, according to this, the U.S. Air Force’s B-52H bomber averages about thirty-four years of service.

If every time you drove your car, you had a mechanic go over it, examining everything, replacing parts that seemed worn, etc., then you’d expect your car to be doing pretty well after twenty years. The care and maintenance that people put into their cars is nothing when compared to the amount that goes into each shuttle between flights.

So, does this mean the students are wrong? No. But it gives me the impression that their analysis is probably too superficial.

(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)

In The Corner, Andrew Stuttaford calls attention to a voting proposal to allow parents extra ballots for each child under eighteen. Stuttaford thinks this is a terrible idea, and quotes a Green Party representative who thinks it would be great to give the ‘little people” the vote.

Normally, the fact that the German Green Party supports something is prima facie evidence that it’s bad.

But I think that such a policy would have unintended consequences that liberals wouldn’t like, at least if it were implemented with the parents voting on behalf of their children, rather than the children themselves casting a ballot.

First of all, it would certainly increase the pro-life vote, since people who oppose abortion tend to have more children than those who support it.

In general, the voting patterns of people with children tend to be more conservative than people without children. If you give more weight to votes of people with children, that would increase the number of conservative votes.

Finally, it would increase the incentives to have more children. Germany, like most European countries, is facing a huge demographic crisis, with birthrates far below replacement level. While the additional votes themselves would certainly not be enough incentive to change this pattern, politicians would pay more attention to parents’ concerns. Tax incentives would change to be more friendly toward parents. As the financial burdens of having children lessened, family sizes would increase. This would create a feedback loop: larger families lead to more political power, which leads to favorable tax treatment for larger families, which leades to larger families.

(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)

Interesting discussion of whether there should be a comma between the second-to-last item in a list and the “and”: Dr. Weevil: Strunk And Disorderly.

I favor the comma there for two reasons:
1. In speaking, I would naturally tend to pause there.
2. It helps avoid confusion.

The only real arguments against it are that it is redundant and that it takes up space. Well, I can understand that in a newspaper, where space is at a premium, it might make sense. But unless space is a problem, I can’t see how it would be harmful to include the comma, whereas it is easy to come up with examples where omitting the comma would lead to confusion.

Prof. Volokh responds again via e-mail:

Sorry — I thought that by “matter between man and man” you meant “matter that men are to judge other men for doing.” That’s the question: Which sins are strictly for God to punish, and which are for men to punish?

Say that two men get together to build an idol, or to worship one — idolatry, after all, has rarely been a purely personal behavior, but rather a communal one. Likewise, say that a whole community arises to worship several gods, or even one god that’s not the Christian God; again, worship is also largely a communal activity. But the fact that these practices usually involve many men doesn’t make them a “matter between man and man” for your purposes: It is not for you or me to punish these people; God will take care of that. So why is two men having consensual sex any different from two men creating graven images together, or two men worshipping other gods together?

My response:

Let me try to explain it another way.

The first four commandments deal only with the proper respect and worship that is due to God. Choices about which god or gods to worship, and the manner in which such worship is to be conducted, is a matter of religious freedom.

The latter six commandments are not concerned with one’s relationship to God, they are concerned with interaction between people. How people interact with each other, and society’s rules for such interactions, are not generally considered to be a matter of religious freedom.

Two men worshipping idols together: a matter of religious freedom, because it’s a question of which god or gods to worship, and in what manner.

Two men having sex together, or selling drugs, or conspiring to kill a bald eagle, or making a contract that involves the payment of interest, or prematurely removing the tags off of matresses: not a matter of religious freedom, because it has nothing to do with which god or gods to worship. There are other types of freedom involved in those activities, but not religious freedom.

Now, of course, there are cases where the boundary gets fuzzy. For example, the use of peyote in Native American religious rituals can change the context of two men selling drugs so that it becomes a religious freedom issue. But that is only because it involves method of worship. If a Mormon like me buys peyote, there’s no religious freedom issue at all, because peyote is not involved in our worship.

One of the “Articles of Faith” of my church (see here) is “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” That is what religious freedom means to me, and I suspect many non-Mormons would agree.

It sounds to me like you are trying to expand the concept of religious freedom far beyond what most people consider it to be. Then, with your expanded definition, you say that Christian conservatives are being inconsistent if they support religious freedom for Hindus but not homosexuals. I’m not sure what that’s called, but it’s got to be a logical fallacy of some sort.

(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)

Couple Accused of Keeping Twins Caged

Two five-year-old twins kept in a roach-filled caged made of two cribs wired together. They couldn’t speak and were not yet toilet-trained.

How can people do stuff like this?

(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)

An assignment for my creative writing class.

Jeff lugged his suitcase off the train and set his foot down in Italy for the first time. He was in Rome: home of emperors and gladiators; locus of the Colisseum and the Forum. This was the planned highlight of his tour of Europe, the final historic destination for a student of ancient European history.

His suitcase was already overloaded with souvenirs — he’d had to discard a pair of jeans and a couple of T-shirts to make room. But he could buy more clothes when he got back to the States. He put the suitcase down, unslung the carry-on bag from his shoulder, and wriggled his back to get the kinks out. Sleeping on a train was cheaper than a hotel, but much less comfortable. He glanced around. Surely there must be a baggage cart he could use until–

“Daniel! You come back!” A young, dark-haired woman rushed up beside him and threw her arms around his neck. “I miss you so much. I know you cannot leave me.” She began kissing his cheek.

Read the rest of this entry »