The Dover Trial Merits Top Ten Consideration

Having now read several “top ten news stories of the decade” lists, such as this one from the Associated Press, I was disappointed to see that one of my top choices was nowhere to be found.

What is my choice? It’s the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District “evolution” trial of 2005. Without doubt, it is the most significant such trial in U.S. history, easily outdistancing even the Scopes trial.

At least for supporters of evolution, the Dover trial showcased the arguments and motives of both sides of this debate in the starkest and clearest of terms. Scientists were permitted to offer evidence for evolution with a detail and scope rarely if ever before seen in a legal forum. The deceptions and religious motives of the opposing side were made equally clear. This culminated in a judge’s ruling that was a more thorough indictment of “intelligent design” than anyone had predicted — or might have even hoped for.

With related stories, such as the voting out of office of all the Dover school board members who supported the intelligent design policy, this story combined melodrama with science. No wonder than that it has been the subject of numerous books (including my favorite, The Battle over the Meaning of Everything) and a superb Nova episode (Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial).

The evolution debate casts a wide shadow — far beyond this trial. While there is no debate among scientists, the issue continues to play a role in national politics, cropping up for example in the 2008 presidential election via Sarah Palin’s support for creationism.

The Dover trial did not put an end to the creationist/intelligent design movement. No trial could do that. But it has apparently resulted in a permanent shift in strategy. The movement has curtailed, if not entirely cut back, its attempts to force intelligent design into school curricula based on claims that ID is science — especially so if a court challenge seems likely. If for no other reason, this trial deserves serious consideration as one of the top news stories of the decade. It’s certainly on my list.

(Atheist) Signs for Our Times

In a New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof expresses hope that a new crop of books, with titles like “The Case for God,” will lead to a truce in the “religious wars.” This is just one of several articles I have read recently — that all seem to suggest that prominent atheists (such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) represent a form of intolerance that is equal to those of religious fundamentalists at the opposite extreme. What we need to find, so the argument goes, is some middle compromise.

I have already stated my general opposition to this viewpoint. I won’t repeat all of those arguments here. I will, however, point out one particular dismay: Although the “truce” articles pay lip service to the need for accommodations by “both sides,” the onus of responsibility always seems to fall on the atheists. It’s as if they are saying: “Things were going so well before people like Dawkins came along to upset the apple cart. Can’t we just return to the civility we used to have?”

First off, unless you ignore the inflammatory statements made over the years by religious extremists, it can hardly be said that things were civil before Richard Dawkins arrived on the scene. To the contrary, any superficial appearance of civility was only because religion has had the playing field to itself, fending off criticism by claiming that it should be immune to critique. The “new atheists” did not create the current controversy. Rather, they are simply the ones to be outspoken in pointing out that there is another possibility to consider (a bit like the child who shouts “the emperor has no clothes”). If one believes that God does not exist, then it follows that all religions are wrong and are based on a myth. It is not intolerant to point out this implication, any more than it is intolerant to point out that humans are the product of evolution.

All of this, however, is not the primary reason for my blog entry today. Rather, it is something more specific. On December 2, a New York Times article described a new advertising campaign for atheism. It features signs on buses and trains with statements such as “No god? … No problem!” and “Be good for goodness’ sake.” A major sponsor of the campaign is the American Humanist Association.

In a letter to the editor, Edd Doerr (a former head of the American Humanist Association) wrote that he was “embarrassed” by the campaign. He argued that we should avoid the divisiveness resulting from these ads and instead focus on those things we (atheists and religious believers) hold in common, such as “peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, the environment, social justice…” He described the signs as “name-calling and invective.”

Whew! I was both saddened and angry to see this letter. To me, it captures almost everything that is wrong with the current criticism. To have it written by someone within the humanist movement was especially disheartening.

First of all, to suggest that these signs represent “name-calling and invective” is almost libelous. They are incredibly tame, especially compared to the true invective that is often directed toward atheists. “Be good for goodness’ sake”? Where is the invective in this? If atheists are not to be “allowed” to express their views even in these mild terms, in what form can we express our views? Or, to turn it around, should any signs promoting a religious belief, no matter how mild, be banned as well?

But let’s put all that aside. Suppose we accept the idea, however wrong, that these signs are provocative and hostile in some way. Does this mean that these signs are necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. When it comes to making progress against discrimination, being provocative has often been a requirement.

Where would African Americans be today if Rosa Parks had quietly sat in the back of the bus? Or if Martin Luther King had never staged a sit-in? Where would women’s rights be today if not for the provocations of people such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinham — women who were criticized as “strident” in expressing their beliefs?

The actions of such people may not be the only ingredients necessary to move the country forward. Conciliation will also be needed. But without these actions to lead the way, there will be no movement at all.

As such, these signs represent a mild and relatively polite form of political activism. If nothing else, they help make it more acceptable for atheists to be open about their beliefs and will ultimately lead to greater tolerance of such beliefs (see this Wikipedia page for a discussion of discrimination against atheists). We may actually already be seeing the beginnings of this shift. As pointed out in the above-cited NYT article, there is a “growing number of nonbelievers. Fifteen percent of Americans identified themselves as having ‘no religion’ in a 2008, up from 8 percent in 1990…”

Sorry Edd, but it is the rest of us who should be embarrassed by you. Your letter represents the sort of frightened head-in-the-sand attitude that, if followed a half-century ago, would have resulted in blacks still drinking from separate water fountains today. As an atheist, I am proud of these signs. I also look forward to the day when they are no longer needed.

Get rid of the filibuster

Over the weekend, the Senate Democrats managed to unite long enough to move the health care reform bill to the floor for debate. They patched together the sixty votes needed to override a filibuster attempt by the equally united Republicans. Hooray!

Of course, all is not over. The bill still has to pass the Senate (where another attempt at a filibuster will surely be made).

Personally, I am fed up with filibusters.

For starters, the idea that a bill needs to survive at least two threatened filibusters to get approved is overkill. It’s absurd enough to have to deal with a filibuster threat once per bill.

Actually, I would prefer to eliminate filibusters altogether. The House survives without them. So could the Senate.

Not too long ago, back in 2005, when the Republicans controlled the Senate, they threatened “a nuclear option,” a move to essentially eliminate the filibuster altogether. They were frustrated with Democratic filibusters that were holding up judicial nominees. In the end, the “crisis” was averted — and the filibuster remained intact. Too bad.

Before I take any political position, I try to examine it from both sides of the fence. Sure, as a left-wing Democrat in favor of universal health care, I would welcome the elimination of the filibuster roadblock in the current Congress. But, if this happens, the day will surely come when the tables are turned and it will be a Republican majority forcing through its legislative agenda without the filibuster as a brake. I need to consider this as well. Without this sort of of consideration, you wind up looking hypocritical, switching positions as the political winds shift (a common illness in Washington; see this article).

On balance, I’d take the risk and would welcome a death-blow to this anachronistic procedure.

My major objections to the filibuster are two-fold.

First, it is too easy to filibuster. As has been repeatedly pointed out by the media, you now need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. I don’t believe this was ever the intention of the Constitution or even the original concept of the filibuster itself. Remember when you actually had to stand up and keep talking to maintain a filibuster? Back then, a filibuster was not automatically guaranteed to succeed. Now, you simply have to threaten a filibuster and a bill is dead within seconds.

For a good explanation of “How Cloture Rule Allows Minority To Block Legislation Without ‘Actual Filibustering,'” see this article.

My second objection follows from the first: the frequency of filibusters has ballooned in recent years. As noted in Wikipedia: “In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters.” In 2008, there was a record 112 cloture votes [needed to end debate on a filibustered bill].

Two other articles, one from the Washington Post and the other from politico.com, similarly discuss the merits of ending a filibuster.

In the end, frequent filibusters hurt the entire Senate. When neither party can pass significant legislation, even when they have a clear majority, the result is that nothing significant ever gets accomplished. The public inevitably adopts a “pox on both their houses” view. Sadly, as the minority party can typically prevent any revision to the rules, and as a filibuster serves the short-term interests of the minority, I doubt we’ll see any changes any time soon.

Republicans’ low road to nowhere

It’s a bit sad and more than a bit pathetic to see Republicans so desperate to win elections that they descend to the lowest possible road as quickly as they can.

With a unpopular war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives, soaring food costs, the sky-rocketing price of oil, mortgage foreclosures at record highs, a looming health care crisis, an impending global-warming disaster, and continuing international problems in the Middle East and Asia, Republicans are cheering that the recent California decision in support of gay marriage is an “early Christmas gift.”

An upstanding Republican candidate (if such a person exists), who was opposed to the ruling, could simply say: “I am against gay marriage and I will work to make it illegal. However, there are many more important and more pressing issues that confront our country today. And these are issues where my views differ from those of my opponent. I intend to focus on these other issues in the campaign ahead.” And mean it.

I’m not holding my breath waiting to hear this. Rather, I expect Republicans, as usual, to milk this hot button issue for all its worth — doing their best to keep the campaign at gutter level. It is a strategy that depends upon appealing to our fears and prejudices, that offers no solutions to the real problems that our country faces, that focuses exclusively on what it takes to win (at almost any cost) rather than what it takes to govern, and that seeks to “swift boat” opponents rather than offer legitimate criticism. Unfortunately, it is a strategy that has worked well in the past.

I can only hope that the tide has finally turned against this sort of campaigning — and that it will fail miserably this time around. There are already signs that this is happening, such as in last week’s Mississippi Congressional election, where a Democrat won in a district that voted strongly Republican last time around. If this trend continues, this fall will see not only the welcome end of the Bush era, but the end of the uber-divisive and deceptive political tactics on which the administration thrived.