AllTheseThings

You Got a Permit for That?

This is a disturbing, if not unfortunately foreseeable, event.  Apparently, county officials in San Diego have told a local pastor that he must have a permit for a weekly Bible study at his house.  It only consists of 10-15 people.  This is foreseeable for a few reasons:  1) we've confused our understanding of private property and permitting issues beyond belief; 2) there is a growing desire by government workers to gain additional revenue by any means possible; 3) there is growing hostility from government against religion; and 4) common sense is on life support.

What makes this development--admittedly a first, but something that will catch on because of reason No. 2, above--so frustrating is the total departure from our founding ideas.  The concept of ownership of property, which includes beliefs according to James Madison, is gone from the government class.  Government was instituted to protect our property.  Now we seem to think government was instituted to regulate our property--turning our founding thoughts upside down.

It is also frustrating that this will be unequally applied, of course.  In the article, the pastor asks some good questions about this novel, and silly, policy:

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?"

Those aren't questions the bureaucrats will likely answer.  Instead, they are requiring the pastor to get an assembly permit (the policy has found a way to attack not one, but multiple parts of the 1st Amendment.)  The permitting process can cost tens of thousands of dollars.  I don't know about you, but my local Bible-study group couldn't afford that.  Thus, religious groups will not be directly shut down, but will be indirectly shut down, or exist "illegally."

Part of this stems from most of the regulations being designed to apply to businesses--where $10,000 might be a do-able price to pay.  That usually isn't the case for small churches and community groups.  My church faces this issue a lot.  It is a small church in a wealthy, over-regulated town.  While it works for some of the major companies in town to play the regulation-city-hall-bureaucracy game, it is virtually impossible for us to do the same.  This is made worse by the fact that main-line, larger, traditional churches--which are usually more established in the community, and wealthier--are decreasing, while smaller, start-up churches are growing.

If these sorts of regulations and interpretations--way more letter of the law than spirit with most city-hall types--don't change, churches everyone will start having to wrestle with how to apply the "obeying your government" commands with the need to "not forsake meeting together" command.

Tough times ahead.

Thomas More

[email protected]

The world's smallest epidemic

With the rise and fall of the swine flu, we’ve heard a lot about epidemics lately. You’d think we’d be prepared by now, but epidemics are tricky; they keep mutating and then popping up in completely different places, and at times you’d least expect them.

In the HIV arena, the word “epidemic” isn’t new. But despite everything we now know about the virus, and all the potent anti-retroviral drugs available, "epidemic" still applies. In the US, the rates of new infection have been only stationary for the last few years, which is maybe disappointing in and of itself. And in one particular population, broadly named “MSM” (Men who have Sex with Men), the rates of HIV infection are actually increasing. With all the information we now have about the virus and how it’s transmitted, not to mention how to protect ourselves, what could be causing this increase? What separates the MSM group from the other high risk groups: IV drug users, prostitutes etc?

The answer? Homophobia. Yes, the powers that be have determined that this has less to do with any inherent high risk behaviour this group engage in and is more to do with that fact men who have sex with men are looked down upon and made to feel ashamed, which makes them sad and depressed and more likely to hide their HIV status, avoiding getting help. So, say the public health big wigs, the reason HIV rates are increasing among the MSM population is that there is a homophobia epidemic “fuelling” the HIV epidemic. If you are anything other than 100% supportive of homosexuality, you are actually guilty, not just of bigotry, but of promoting the spread of a deadly virus.

One of the most disturbing features of this point of view, (a view which has been seeping into the HIV world for a while now), is that it’s at least supported, if not the brain-child of people who claim to be scientists. Scientists are supposed to require convincing evidence on which to base their conclusions. There’s so little evidence to support a “homophobia epidemic” it’s shocking that the theory has survived this long. How many people do you know who have a “fear or hatred of homosexuality” and is there any sign that this number is increasing?

But I suspect that’s not the definition of homophobia that’s being used, and that this has nothing to do with science. This is a very poorly hidden agenda to push the legalisation of gay marriage. If you oppose gay marriage and you feel backed into a corner, I don’t blame you. “Are you in favor of gay marriage, or more HIV ?”. “Errr………..”. I suspect “neither” isn’t an option on that questionnaire.   

I have no doubt that genuine homophobia exists, and it has been the cause of genuine suffering. Violence and the suffering it causes should be opposed by everyone, no matter who is the victim. But, labelling every person who favors marriage between only men and women as a “homophobe” just distracts from the real problem, (which I suspect has more to do with power than sexuality). And then linking this watered-down definition of homophobia to the HIV epidemic, the cause of a staggering amount of suffering, is the biggest emotional blackmail of all.    

Philomena

[email protected]

Just War Theory and Missile Defense

Is neglecting the development of a U.S. missile-defense system immoral?

Twice, in this fine article, Mr. Greenfield notes the immorality of a full-throttled nuclear response to a rogue state missile attack--on either Israel or the U.S.A.  He notes:  "Test after successful test of anti-missile missiles shows that President Ronald Reagan’s original vision of missile defense — not the immoral and limited option of massive retaliation — has become attractive both in the United States and Europe."  Then he says:  "Missile threats are real and missile defense science is solid. The funding costs are actually quite low and the moral case is overwhelming."

The moral component caught my eye.  The article, by the Claremont Institute's Vice President and American Studies scholar, walks you through the basics of America's missile-defense program, capabilities, and needs.  The current program is being cut in the new President Obama budget--and it is somewhat amazing that anything is cut, given all the spending increases that are offered.  He notes that the cut in R&D for the program is in the $10's of Billions, in a multi-Trillion dollar budget; basically, an OMB rounding error for a program that could protect Americans from 10,000's or 100,000's of deaths; economic, social, and political chaos--if not annihilation.

But program cuts in the budget are typically more in the prudential, rather than moral, realm for public policy.  Budgetary decisions are difficult, and wise leaders properly prioritize.  Rarely do you hear, however, that a budgetary cut or increase is "immoral."

So what is the moral case for missile defense?  I believe it lies in the current defense strategy:  mutually assured destruction (MAD.)  The development of technology allowed, in the 1950's and 1960's, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. to guarantee the others' end if one attacked.  This checked the impulse to launch missiles.  But only superpowers then had both long-range missiles and nuclear technology.  In the intervening decades, lesser powers have developed both missiles and nuclear bombs.  Thus, technology changed the geo-political playing field, but America has not substantively changed its strategy.  Ronald Reagan's vision of SDI ("Star Wars" the critics called it), opened for wide discussion the game-changing strategy shift from destroying the other side to not being destroyed.  Essentially, Reagan wondered allowed if it would not be better to not all be blown to smithereens, rather than being sure we could blow the Soviets up (after they had blown us up.)

Despite the criticism, the idea--if technologically feasible--is solid:  it is better not to die, than to die knowing you have killed your killer.  But as missile and nuclear technology has proliferated, we cannot be so sure mutually assured destruction even works--we cannot be sure we killed our killer, yet we might kill a lot of innocents trying.  If MAD does not work--meaning their destruction cannot be guaranteed--then MAD does not deter.  With no deterrence, we increase the incentive for our enemies to attack us (or at least decrease the disincentive, but nature typically abhors weakness, and tyrants tend to love to flex their muscles against their enemies, lest their own citizens turn their gazes against the tyrants.) 

The decreased disincentive increases our need for another strategy.  Enter missile defense.  If the bully cannot land his punch, he likely won't swing.  But if he can land his punch, and leave the area where he punched from, does a massive counterstrike help?  Moreover, is it moral?

The moral component creeps in again.  A quick and imprecise summary of "Just War" theory shows the following is needed to wage war justly:

we must be seriously threatened or harmed;

war is our only feasible response;

we must have a chance of winning;

the force used must not cause evils worse than the evil to be eliminated (proportionality.)

Well, if a rogue state or terrorist cell in another country launched a nuclear missile at Los Angeles, 1, 2, and 3 are likely satisfied (although you could quibble over "winning" a nuclear exchange.)  But does annihilation of the attacking nation justly respond to one missile?  What if it is not even launched by the nation itself, but from a terrorist-occupied region the nation cannot control (imagine the tribal lands of Pakistan or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan)?  Does the annihilation of Afghanistan really deter an Al Qaeda agent that is either a suicide bomber (on a nuclear scale) or one who can escape into caves in Pakistan before a counter attack?

Essentially, the technology disbursements since we developed MAD means MAD does not fit all--or even our most likely--threats in today's world.  MAD relies on rational, big-state actors (the ones who had exclusive control of nuclear stockpiles) acting rationally and with something to lose.  That's not our world.

Yet, we continue to drive policy away from defense, and rely on a ghastly offense.  If we countered with dozens or hundreds of nukes against one missile, have we responded 'proportionately'?  Likely not.  MAD, however, would likely satisfy the 'proportionality' rule for a regular state:  they could destroy us, we could respond.  It is mutual, thus proportional.  But highly unpleasant.  But MAD, especially against Iran, North Korea, or a terrorist cell does not work.  Moreover, with the terrorist cells, we cannot even "assure" the destruction of the group.  So how do we justly wage war against rogue-state attacks?  It seems, back to Mr. Greenfield's point, that the most "moral" solution is not to eliminate the citizens of Iran and North Korea en masse.  Instead, it is better to make it impossible--or highly unlikely--for them to be able to hit us.  Thus, the decision to cut missile defense from the budget, when it has the prospect not only of saving American lives, but also those of the threatening nations, does take on a moral component.

Maybe defense is the best offense.

Thomas More

[email protected]