Behavior v Belief: Free Exercise as a constitutional or statutory right

Marcia Hamilton has a very interesting article regarding attempts by conservative Christians to validate their right to do anything they want under the guise of "free exercise." This would dismantle statutorily the government's right to control behavior; it could conceivable find itself at odds with Reynolds v United States (the famous polygamy case in which Justice Waite said the government could not control belief but could indeed regulate behavior.)  As Hamilton's article points out, some conservative Christians want to have the right to physically punish their children (beat v spank depending on your point of view) and not worry about being charged with child abuse, hiding behind the free exercise clause.

"As we know from the history of RFRAs, these free- exercise statutes are hard for Americans to resist.  Those who vote for them may simply think, “What could be wrong with more religious liberty?”  The short answer is that this is a zero-sum game.  When the religious actor gets more latitude to break the law, the persons whom that law was intended to protect lose that protection."

Goodreads | Eric_W Welch (Forreston, IL)'s review of Unholy Order: A Paul Devlin Mystery

Paul Devlin is a New York police inspector, a rank recently reinstated by the mayor for Paul whose answers to Hizzoner and who is assigned the most politically sensitive investigations.  He has a small unit, including Sergeant Sharon Levy, a drop-dead gorgeous lesbian (stop snickering, at least we don’t have to worry about a relationship between the two.)  A nun has been found in the long-term parking lot of JFK with her belly slit open to retrieve several condoms filled with heroin she had swallowed, her throat cut.  A gay priest with AIDS with his throat cut is soon also discovered and now Devlin has a PR nightmare on his hands. (The scene where Devlin and Levy face off with Matthew (his colleague is John.......wait, here come the inevitable...) is a priceless display of power.

I downgraded the book a little because it occasionally splits into two different books: a good police procedural and the other ruminations on ill-considered Catholic policies toward gay priests, celibacy, etc. I think the Catholic Church is just a beached whale that doesn’t realize it’s out of the water so I have no problem with the little asides, but they didn’t integrate well with the rest of the story. It wasn’t necessary.  Opus Christi is clearly intended to be Opus Dei.  Again, I rather enjoy exposing them for their silliness, but the characterization is a bit extreme.

Nevertheless, it was a fun story with some skimmable parts.

'via Blog this'

Obama's Composite Girlfriend: How Politico and Drudge Created Fake News - David A. Graham - Politics - The Atlantic

 "One reason why fake news is so pervasive, so easy to spread, and so hard to debunk is that it almost always has some sort of basis in reality. For example, real-life end-of-life consultation becomes "death panels." Because debunkers have to explain the complex reality in detail, the simpler but false version never gets dislodged. But it's not often that we get to see just how the fake-news sausage gets made."

'via Blog this'

The Business Rusch: Royalty Statement Update 2012 | Kristine Kathryn Rusch

A side benefit of the DOJ suit against the legacy publishers.  Quote:

 "The reason I was so excited about the Department of Justice lawsuit against the five publishers wasn’t because of the anti-trust issues (which do exist on a variety of levels in publishing, in my opinion), but because the DOJ accountants will dig, and dig, and dig into the records of these traditional publishers, particularly one company named in the suit that’s got truly egregious business practices.

Those practices will change, if only because the DOJ’s forensic accountants will request information that the current accounting systems in most publishing houses do not track. The accounting system in all five of these houses will get overhauled, and brought into the 21st century, and that will benefit writers. It will be an accidental benefit, but it will occur."

'via Blog this'

Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution: Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge shows how the Founding Fathers supported mandates. - Slate Magazine

"In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation."

'via Blog this'