Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Introducing Constitutional Law in the Midst of the Plight

8/26/2015—Martin Heidegger says that we are living in the midst of an emergency. That emergency manifests in many ways, one of which is that we do not understand that we are living in an emergency. We think things are OK. Normal. Like they have always been. Our problems are just human nature.

Last year, I talked about the broken Republic. (On this blog, one year ago) This year, I tried to introduce my students in constitutional law this year to thinking in the emergency. Here is what I told them.


Why does almost every American law school require constitutional law? Unlike the 1st year courses in private civil law and procedure, such as the property, torts and contract, constitutional law does not really form the basis of all legal concepts in all other areas of law. Nor will most of you handle constitutional cases, though some of you will. Of course constitutional law is on the bar exam, and in fact constitutes a substantial portion of the bar exam, but family law is on the bar exam as well and most law schools did not require it.

The answer has something to do with Marbury v Madison and the doctrine of judicial review. Judicial review, which Marbury is credited with establishing, although the idea was not particularly controversial and had been previously accepted, is the power of the court, in the course of ordinary litigation, to hold the actions of other branches of government, such as statutes and Executive Orders, unconstitutional and thereby void. Judicial review is the opposite of parliamentary supremacy, which is the doctrine that laws enacted by the legislature are beyond challenge by other branches of government.

Aside from the context of Marbury – – how it arose, how it was a part of a political/legal struggle between 2 political parties, the Federalist party and the new Democratic Republican party of the recently elected president Thomas Jefferson, and how the particular holding of unconstitutionality could not readily be overturned by the president or by Congress –- aside from all that, the establishment of judicial review meant that some questions that could perhaps have been treated in purely political terms with the common issues of law to be debated in a courtroom. And so, with many twists and turns, and with much controversy, some of which we will examine in this course, Marbury leads to the resolution of the gay marriage issue in the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. And that means that lawyers – – judges, litigators and even legal theorists – – will be at the heart of American public life. Judicial review mean that the legal profession that you are seeking to join has a special responsibility for the healthy functioning of the constitutional system. And I believe that this is the reason that almost every law school requires constitutional law. You will each be responsible for the health of American public life.

So the question I want to put you is, how are we, and the Constitution that has been put into our hands through the doctrine of judicial review, how are we doing?

I think we are doing very badly indeed. I know members of our faculty in the law school disagree with me about this, Maybe we are doing just fine. But In fact I believe that the experiment of the Republic is in danger of failing. There was always a question of how this would go. Apocryphally, Benjamin Franklin was asked if he left a constitutional convention, Mr. Franklin, what form of government have we? The answer, the Republic, Madam, if you can keep it. We are in danger of not keeping it.

The story of failing American public life obviously can be told from 2 different points of view. From one point of view, the Republican Party has become a rogue political party, denying facts and science, in thrall to the economic 1%, and so is poisonously partisan that it would rather see America go down the drain then see Pres. Obama succeed. From the other point of view, we don’t have a president as much as we have a dictator, who believes his own policy, rather than, as the Constitution would have it, the policies of Congress, should be the law, in many fields from immigration to environment to the Iranian deal. Under this regime of Presidential will, no individual rights are safe, from search and seizure to religious liberty.

The very fact that there are 2 such narratives absolutely believed by millions of Americans demonstrates that political solidarity and community is failing in America today. Perhaps you believe that everything is fine and that political life has always been like this more or less because of human nature. But I think there is something wrong.

The question then becomes, what went wrong? When did it go wrong? How did it go wrong? And, most importantly, can it be made right, or at least more right than at present? And I hope that this course will give you the tools, and perhaps if I am successful, some hints, that might help you answer this most important task of healing America.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

“The money seems to have lost its knack for hoodwinking the voters.”

8/19/2015—The above quote is from Paul Krugman—you can look it up. (I believe it was his blog). Krugman’s point in context was that Jeb Bush is raising all this money from just a few billionaires and he is still just fourth in the polls.

But the quote fits into a larger context as well. Bush is mostly raising independent money. That is, super PAC money. I have been arguing that the problem of money in American politics is not the amount but the independence. We need that money to go directly to candidates so they are responsible to the voters for it. This is my disagreement with Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig, who is now running for President.

And I can do something about that independence—if we end campaign contribution limits, all that money eventually will have to go to the candidates themselves. Then the voters will see plainly who is paying for what. And won’t some of these rich people go home if all they can do is contribute to campaigns?

And, additionally, then the Democrats will not be handicapped with these ridiculously low contribution limits. Big donors give millions to Super PACs backing Republicans while Hillary spends all her time raising nickels and dimes. This partisan edge is not my reason for opposing contribution limits, but you would think the Dems would support the idea out of self-interest alone.

It’s not just the money. Krugman sees that now. It’s independence that is the problem.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

No Religious Right to Refuse Government Service

8/15/2015--Word comes now of the refusal of a Kentucky clerk to issue a gay wedding license for "religious reasons." Reportedly a handful of county clerks are refusing to obey a court order to issue the licenses. This will all sort itself out soon enough. We are still a nation of law even though we now know that law is arbitrarily man made.

Aside from the obedience to law aspect, this episode is one of a number of religious conscience cases. A few days ago, a Colorado court ruled against a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake.

Here's the thing. Principle should go out the window here. The country is split over gay marriage still and we should leave small businesses alone who don't want to serve gay weddings. I say that even though there used to be racists who would do the same thing. This case is different because major religions did not teach racism. Do supporters of gay marriage want religious martyrs? I say this as one such supporter who does not.

But, as the group of pro-gay marriage supporters who also support religious conscience have said before, conscience cannot trump government services. If someone in such an office objects, someone else must issue the license.

Gay rights are a beautiful thing. They won't stay beautiful long if religious people are hounded. As long as everyone can get their needs met, this issue of religious objections does not have to absolutely worked out. And it shouldn't be. This should be a matter of live and let live until everybody gets used to the idea of gay equality.

I am not demeaning discrimination. That is what it is. But I am also not interested in fights over symbolic denials of services for the sake of forcing a symbolic affirmation of equality.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

The Need for Forgiveness

8/9/2015—I was reading today in the Pittsburgh Catholic newspaper a short story about how Pope Francis is urging Catholics to go to confession, which is a practice that has gone out-of-favor in many parts of the Roman Catholic world. It was interesting to me the reason that Pope Francis gave for why he believes people are staying away from confession. Pope Francis believes that people are ashamed of what they had done.

The question is whether non-religiously observant people have a need for forgiveness and how that need might be satisfied. The emphasis by Pope Francis on shame answers one objection from the nonreligious world. Pope Francis is not particularly concerned, apparently, with getting people to confess so-called sins, such as loving gay relationships, which particular Catholics do not believe are sinful. Obviously, although it is true that a gay Catholic would not feel the need to go to confession about such a relationship, the reason would not be shame. The reason would be that there is nothing to confess.

Pope Francis is concerned about something else entirely, something that we tend to forget. We do bad things. We do bad things all the time. The bad things that we do all the time are inexcusable. We hurt the ones we love all the time. And we lack concern for those whom we do not know all the time.

Now, how is a person to deal with such a circumstance? From Pope Francis’s perspective, such a person, which is all of us, goes to confession, confronts the evil, his own evil, and is forgiven. But the structure of this particular forgiveness – – Pope Francis says that the confessing person does not confront angry judgment but a forgiving merciful father – – is not without a norm. Yes, I am forgiven for doing wrong, but I am drawn to acknowledge that I have done wrong. Even though I am likely to repeat the wrong, and even though I will be forgiven again, and even though I know that is the case, I still must admit in confession that I have done something wrong.

It is this very characteristic, that is, the admission of wrongdoing, that’ I find utterly lacking outside the religious communities. The inability to acknowledge our own wrongs is killing us. It is a part of the great falseness and lie that seem to be at the heart of American life.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

What Is a Religious War?

8/6/2015—It was pointed out to me by a friend that the framers of our constitutional system feared, above all things, the sort of religious war that had beset Europe from 1524 to 1648 A.D. America has largely been spared this sort of Catholic – Protestant warfare that the framers had in mind. This is so despite some real anti-Catholic discrimination at various times in American history.

But let my friend suggested is that we now have a different kind of religious war going on. On the one side, there is a conservative religious alliance with capitalism. On the other, there is a kind of left wing anarchism. This is his rough approximation of the Republican Democratic split in the United States today.

I’m not sure that his description is entirely correct. But his basic insight that the division in the United States is all-encompassing and does not seem to respond to particular issue analysis seems apt. Simply put, we are divided not for a particular reason but simply because we are in two separate blocs.

I’m reminded of this because of the reception of the Iranian nuclear deal. I was very surprised that a majority of Americans do not support the deal. After all, the alternative is war at some point, as president Obama stated yesterday. I am pretty sure that a majority of Americans will support the deal.

At the moment, however, the deal is following prey to this split. Almost all Republican oppose it. Therefore, if only a few Democrats also oppose the deal, the deal fails in Congress.

The question becomes how to heal a split that is only in part based on policy differences? I don’t know the answer to that. The wars of religion in Europe only ended when Europe became exhausted.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

What We Can Learn from Fifty Shades of Grey

8/1/2015 – – I finally saw the movie, Fifty Shades of Gray. I do not usually address gender issues, but three comments do occur to me.

First, the movie is a lot of fun. Sexy and entertaining. Fortunately, the movie ends with Anastasia finally understanding how sick Christian Grey is. All that talk about safety and exploring one’s sexuality dissolves at the end of the movie into a male character simply wishing to inflict pain. The unanswerable question, why do you want to see me like this?, exposes this creep as the abusing loser that he is.

Second, Jamie Dorman is not exactly a commanding male presence. And, indeed, as presented in the movie at least, he is needy and confused. He is just rich, not impressive, and not confident. For an object lesson in what Christian Grey should have been like, just rewatch the opening appearance of Clark Gable in Gone with the Wind.

Third, and most important, the success of the book and of the movie shows that many women like to fantasize about being controlled by a man. Throughout the movie, Anastasia is quite content to be passive. And, if the demands on her had not become so extreme, she probably would have continued going along with them. The revealing moment occurred when she asked, are you going to make love to me? It was all up to man.

The secret life of the fantasies of women is their own business, of course. And it is also the case that some portion of the women reading the book or watching the movie feel that reality and fantasy should not be mixed.

But what does the success of this book and movie tell us about the gender equality on campus and about sexual assault? If there are women who desire male forcefulness and initiation, then some of the campus initiatives are bound to fail.

Years ago, one of the classic feminists—I don’t remember which one—made the point that secret fantasies are not public policy. This is of course true and date rape has nothing to do with sexy games.

Nevertheless, this movie reminds us that men and women are to a certain extent different. And that difference does not submit itself to the standards of what it ought to be.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

The Power of Choice

7/29/2015—Maria Russo, the editor of the children’s books for the New York Times Book Review, wrote a penetrating indictment of our culture in the Book Review last Sunday. She was writing about the newly discovered Dr. Seuss book, What Pet Should I Get?. The book is ok by the standards of Theodor Seuss Geisel and was just about ready for publication. But it was never published. The question is, why?

The official explanation given is that, at the time, Seuss was so busy that he forgot this one. That does not ring true to Russo—or any other author, frankly.

Russo’s explanation is that the content of the book—2 children trying to decide which pet to get in a pet store, led Seuss away from dog and cat to imaginative animals. This, she believes led him to write One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, which has many of the same elements, but has moved away from the context of commercial choice into pure imagination. Seuss “ran… away from the pressurized of money and responsibility… .”

Choice is the rubric of our day. It is the foundation of both capitalism and individual rights theory—loss of choice is why jail is a punishment. Choice is human autonomy and free will.

But choice is also not-imagination. It is the opposite of play and lies always in the realm of what already is. Choice is not transformative, except maybe in exposing my surrender to my context, as in Sophie’s Choice. Thus choice is also the opposite of itself. I am choosing among choices I did not necessarily choose.

Russo is showing us that the current world is unimaginative. Seuss was too imaginative to live in it.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Why a Jew Invented Hallowed Secularism

7/22/2015—If you look on page 7 of the book Hallowed Secularism you will see the reference to E.L. Doctorow’s 2000 novel, City of God. Doctorow invented the term hallowed secularism in that novel. Doctorow died yesterday and I thought it appropriate to think about him and the kind of religion that could bring forth such an idea.

In the novel, a very liberal rabbi, Sarah Blumenthal, is struggling with the Jewish tradition. Her synagogue is called the “Synagogue of Evolutionary Judaism.” Sarah wants to maintain a universal ethics “in it numinousness”.

That term refers to the sense humans have of the tremendous mystery of existence. Something more.

Sarah wants to answer, yes. God can be seen as something evolving. The teleology of humanity, which we pursue without even always realizing it, has given “one substantive indication of itself—that we, as human beings, live in moral consequence.”

Realizing this is the potential of hallowed secularism. I used to think of this as mere humanism, but it is not that. Instead, there is a reality apart from just us, though we are a part of that reality. We relate to that reality.

Doctorow was born in 1931. A baby through the Depression. Ten at WWII. Drafted during the 1950’s. His first novel was published in 1960.

So Doctorow was Jewish to his core, but was part of the last Jewish American generation that could think religion without primarily thinking the holocaust. He was as liberal as could be. But he was always a religious thinker. Politically, there was something European about him. According to the NY Times obit, he described himself as part of the “pragmatic social democratic left.” (This might be how my hero, the late Tony Judt, might have described himself).

Doctorow must have viewed Judaism as closer to the universal element that is real and universal, without the fantastic elements he could not believe. This was leading him toward something wholly secular, but not simplistically materialistic. We need the holy, he was reminding us.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

A Great President

7/21/2015—It is time to give President Barack Obama his due. He really has improved things for America and the world. The four major items of accomplishment are: medical insurance for many of the uninsured, the reopening of diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Iranian deal and coming out of the 2008 recession.

As for Obamacare, this has been a goal of progressives since the New Deal. The program could be better but it is done. And it has had a major effect on the life of poor and working class people. That effect will only grow.

As for Cuba, this move has improved US relations with Latin America more than any action since the Panama Canal Treaty, for which President Carter never gets enough credit. The move should have been made years ago.

If the Iran deal prevents Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon for 10 years, it should count as a major achievement. And there is the potential for even a greater payoff. Within those ten years, the deal may change the nature of the regime.

Finally, I cannot say I am ecstatic with the state of the economy—with its 5.3% unemployment and low participation rate and too much part-time work—but have you looked around the world? Obama’s opponents would have moved us down the path of Europe.

I would add other matters as well. I am committed to free trade and believe the potential Asia trade pact will be helpful. Some kind of peaceful counterweight to China is needed.

There are a number of areas where Obama has clearly failed. The worst misstep was promising action against the Syrian regime and not acting. But in general no clear policy with regard to the Arab world, China and Russia. But Obama is a cautious man. No clear policy is better than a bad one.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Religions that Promise Us Death and War

7/18/2015—I have written before about the death of Islam. It is easy to see that Islam will go down the path that Christianity did in Europe after the wars of religion following the Reformation. For what do we see? The more religious you are, the more violent you are. This can be seen in the lone gunman who kills marines in Tennessee. But the violence is almost as clear in the Saudi Arabian diplomatic cables that put opposition to the Shia sect in Iran above even humanitarian aid. All in the name of purified Islam. Who needs this?

But now we see the same thing in Judaism. The Aipac organization is opposing the deal with Iran and, of course, Israel does too. The more Jewish you are, the more likely you are to oppose the deal.

Israel’s version of security lacks any real commitment to the humanity of its foes. You see this in the way Arab citizens of Israel are treated. You see this in the way Iran is portrayed. Demonized.

I don’t know whether President Obama is skilled enough to sell the deal to the nation. But Roger Cohen’s column today in the New York Times is how a lot of young people will see it—-the alternative to the deal is war and an actual Iranian bomb. And these young people will see that religion, in this case Judaism, kills.

And you can see this in India, too, in Hinduism’s political expression. The more religion, the more hatred.

But what do we see in Roman Catholicism? Pope Francis. What do we see in Buddhism? The Dalai Lama. They have their blind spots too. But it isn’t always the more religion, the less humaneness. If religion has a future, they are it.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Good News Tuesday

7/14/2015—Woke up today to the news that agreement has been reached on loans to Greece and an Iranian nuclear deal. The world is a little better today.

Not altogether better. Greece did not get much debt relief, which it needs eventually. But it would be bad at this point for the Euro zone to fracture. As for Iran, the Republican Congress will not agree to the deal.

But that is OK. Netanyahu opposes any deal with Iran. But he is wrong. Even in terms of Israel’s interests. Eventually, the American electorate will choose peace and not war. I just hope Clinton runs on the deal.

As for Greece, apparently Krugman was wrong. A deal for them is better than an exit in their view. Well there is always time to leave if the economy does not pick up.

A good day all around and better than most alternatives.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Mark Greif Says We Can No Longer Ask, What is Man?

7/10/2015—In a really depressing demonstration of how trivial the concerns of our time have become, Mark Greif—a teacher at the New School, co-founder of n+1, and the author of Against Exercise, a supposedly important essay in 2005 (actually just a goof)—has written The Age of the Crisis of Man: Thought and Fiction in America, 1933-1973. Grief’s thesis is that writers during this period—for example, Niebuhr, Mumsford, Sartre, Arendt, etc—asked, in light of the Holocaust and Hiroshima and the bomb, about the nature of man and that this discourse now appears “tedious” and “unhelpful.” “For a variety of reasons, we are more likely to identify (and, as we like to say, to celebrate) the differences among human beings than to corral them into some hortatory category like ‘universal man.’” (quotes selected by Christopher Bentley in the New York Review).

So, the theme of universal man is unmasked as colonialism and sexism and we now include people of color, women, gays etc. (I won’t ask who this “we” is if no conglomerations are possible. Or, is it now groups we are supposed to ask after?)

And what are we supposed to ask now? Not any attempt “to reopen a fundamental philosophical anthropology” but “Answer, rather, the practical matters, concrete questions of value not requiring ‘who we are’ distinct from what we say and do and find the immediate actions necessary to achieve an aim.”

So now we are utilitarian and it does not occur to Greif that he has asserted, unquestioningly, that man is the sort of being who lives to achieve an aim. But is man the kind of being who lives to achieve an aim? Or is man becoming the kind of being for whom all aims now seem pointless?

It turns out that it is not the question what is man? that is unhelpful, but prematurely arriving at an answer. For Grief’s warning is against “preprogrammed” answers to any such questioning. Grief just does not believe anyone can ask the question of man and keep the question open. I guess Grief does not know Heidegger.

I am willing to assert that the question of man, properly framed to move away from anthropology to ontology, is the only question worth asking, for it leads to all other questions. The question is not what is man but who is man and it certainly can open by asking Who am I? Without this fundamental questioning, all other investigations, such as how to stop global warming, are boring. I cannot ask about the world if I have never asked about the human being’s responsibility for the world. And that fundamental question of responsibility is not aided very much by dividing it up into the woman’s responsibility for the world, the gay person’s responsibility, the responsibility of people of color, that of rich white people and so forth. Looking at matters in this latter way is comical as a starting point, however important such political/economic questions can become as the discourse unfolds.

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Can God Do a New Thing?

7/4/2015—This may seem a strange question for a hallowed secularism blog, but it is the gay marriage question. A controversy has broken out on a law and religion listserve about the view of the New Testament on gay marriage. Or on marriage generally.

But this controversy goes beyond law. It is the basis for most of the opposition to gay marriage in America today—or a lot of it.

One has to start with the acknowledgment that Jesus would have been horrified by the prospect of gay marriage. Of course he would, because such relations were unclean under the Old Testament purity code. But so was, most particularly, eating ham. Or not being circumcised.

The purity code was plainly abolished by God when Peter appealed to it in the Book of Acts. “What God has made pure, you must not call unholy”--or in the underlying Hebrew terms, what God has made kosher, you must not call treif.

The gentiles—today Christians—who condemn gay marriage do not understand that they themselves were regarded as unholy by the purity code and by Jesus--"It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."--until Jesus himself learned the lesson that Peter had to relearn after Jesus' death. That code is no more.

So the only Gospel question about gay marriage is whether God has made it kosher. Even to a nonaffiliated former practitioner like myself, it is clear that God has done a mighty act, has broken down a new barrier. But it is as hard for some religious people to accept that God does a new thing, as it was to many Jews in Jesus’ day to imagine that gentiles were now included in the Kingdom of God.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

7/1/2015—John McGinnis, Professor of Constitutional Law at Northwestern Law School, and the author of the book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, wrote a piece last week in City Journal commenting on Chief Justice John Roberts decision in King v. Burwell. Based in part on the work of St. John's law professor Mark Movsesian, McGinnis criticized the method of statutory interpretation that allowed Chief Justice Roberts, and the majority, to uphold subsidies on the federal Obamacare website despite language in the statute suggesting that such subsidies are only available on websites created by the states. Chief Justice Roberts was using a method of statutory interpretation that looks to the purpose of the statute and adjusts interpretation accordingly.

Now, one can criticize Chief Justice Roberts on the ground that he got the purpose of the statute wrong or even that the hodgepodge of the Obamacare statute should not be considered to have a purpose.

But McGinnis does not rest with arguing that Robert's got this particular instance of statutory interpretation wrong. McGinnis argues more generally, relying here on Professor Movsesian, that since federal legislation "is a product of 535 legislators plus the president" interpretation by purpose is inappropriate for a statute: "It's hard to distill an overriding intent or purpose from such a collection of wills… "

McGinnis and Movsesian seem very close here to denying the intelligibility of collective work. For them, there is no rationality, there is only will. They have been infected by the ideology of the market, in which people have desires and nothing more can really be said about them. The person with whom they may be said to be in agreement is Margaret Thatcher, who famously said "there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

In keeping with the spirit of individualism, McGinnis judges methods of statutory interpretation by how much they favor the ends of progressives, as opposed to those of conservatives. But there is much more at stake in the denial of intelligibility than the outcome of this or that political issue.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court's Week

6/27/2015—This blog has been off and on during June because of travelling. But coming this week, Hallowed Secularism will be back to a normal 2-3 posts a week schedule.

The Supreme Court has a big week, upholding Obamacare once again and enacting national same sex marriage. Given my long time support for both, it may surprise people that I have very mixed feelings about these decisions.

Basically, the decisions are not very convincing. In King v. Burwell, the Obamacare case, Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion admitted that the dissenting arguments were strong. They were. The decision can be defended, but only on the ground that the Act could not really mean what it said, which is not a persuasive basis for an opinion. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court fortunately rested on the fundamentality of marriage, but there is no reason to think of gay marriage as itself a fundamental right—something that had not been dreamed of only a few years ago.

In terms of gay marriage, there was always a two-prong possibility—politics or rights. The advantage of politics, in which states legalized gay marriage one by one over time—is that the opponents would feel they had a say and that compromises could be worked out with religious believers who continue to maintain that gay marriage is sinful. Holding gay marriage to be a right means that no compromises are likely. This means that gay marriage will now become a wedge to pursue religious institutions that refuse to adhere to the new right. Law is supposed to bring harmony, not further controversy.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The Democrats Are Wrong on Trade

6/20/2015—I don’t mean the Democrats are necessarily wrong on the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which I don’t know much about. But the rejection of the trade agreement by House Democrats last week was not about this particular agreement. It was about the benefits of trade in general.

This is where the failure of leadership by Paul Krugman and people like him has been so glaring. The economy is a dynamic system. The dynamism of that system has benefited the US. Yes, a lot of those benefits have gone to the top .001%, but not all. And even if redistribution is the goal, a growing pie is easier to redistribute than a stagnant one.

Protectionism is part of a general retreat by Democrats from growth and a better future. It says that we have a certain number of good jobs and we have to do everything to keep them. In the end, this hurts most workers. It’s the old story of trying to retain the carriage industry when cars came out.

The irony is that jobs were already coming back to the US. We’re an economy that does not really need protectionism because of our dynamism.

It is an empirical question whether the US economy benefits from freer trade or not. My impression is that the evidence is clear that we do benefit. A lot. So, where is the strong defense of free trade by people like Krugman?

So, I don’t know much about this agreement. On the other hand, if it does protect intellectual property from government confiscation, isn’t that a good thing when many governments do not respect property rights at all? And if the agreement is as much about the politics of Asia—keeping a peaceful counterweight to China—well, isn’t that a good thing as well?

Anyway, Democratic opposition to this trade deal was mostly about latent opposition to NAFTA. And that opposition is a mistake. Trade in general is the issue. And trade in general is good.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

The End of Rawls

6/18/2015—The Duquesne Law Library kindly forwarded to me a recently published book edited by Martha Nussbaum and Thom Brooks, which presents a series of essays on John Rawls’ book, Political Liberalism. (It’s called Rawls’s Political Liberalism).

I tried to read Nussbaum’s introduction, and I really must, but I couldn’t. Rawls has been around since the 1970’s and since that time, liberals like Nussbaum have tried to convince themselves that a stable, reasonable, secular world can be built around him. But it is just not the case. Rawls is not the future.

The basic problem is one of truth. Rawls does not want the liberal state to take a position on the nature of a good life because people disagree. But there is no getting around some actual value commitments in political life. The pressure of normative life gives to Rawls a feeling of result oriented jerry rigging, as when he famously viewed the pro-life position as outside legitimate liberal political life. Rawls gets to decide which comprehensive doctrines are “reasonable” and it always seems that they are the ones he does not disagree with too much.

But I stopped reading the Introduction when Nussbaum suggested that Judaism is more rational and regards autonomy more than does Christianity. And then she cites the Oven of Aknai story as proof—it is not in heaven.

Does she not realize that the Oven of Aknai story is about the overwhelming power of the rabbis to squelch dissent? It is the opposite of the rational account Nussbaum and other liberal Jews like to tell themselves. The lone dissenter is excommunicated. And while it is true that the story states that God cannot intervene in disputes between scholars, nothing in the story suggests that the winning side was actually more rational than the dissenter. They just had the votes.

Judaism is rabbinic, not rational and is not dedicated to autonomy. That is why there are chief rabbis and why the rabbinate in Israel decides matters of family law. You can call rabbis making rulings rational if you want, but the legal reasoning is just the same as in Christianity or Islam. And just as hierarchical.

The problem we liberals have is that we lack a foundation. We distrust religion—Jews attempt to distinguish Judaism, as Nussbaum did—because we reject the authority of truth. Hence Rawls’ proceduralism. But how do you sustain human life this way?

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Secularization in Greece and Turkey

6/16/2015—I’m just back from a visit to Greece and Turkey. I was exposed not to young people as much as to the generation of my children. And even there, to people from Istanbul, rather than from more rural areas, which makes a difference.

Nevertheless, it is clear that secularization is continuing to make tremendous inroads in these two countries. The phenomenon is not the same in each country. In Greece, matters are similar to the United States. People leave religion and do not give the matter of religion much thought. That is not possible in Turkey, where Islam is a dominating presence and the entire country is organized around the Islamic calendar and practices. (A revealing detail is that our hotel did not serve bacon at breakfast, even though many foreigners stayed there).

So, secularization in Turkey occurs among people who were raised in Islam and take much of its teaching seriously. Just few of its practices.

In both countries, however, the issue of the future remains open. One way to think about this is as a question of the source of values. More deeply, however, is the question of whether values are real and important. Nihilism asks the question, what’s the use? A secular civilization must have a way of addressing that question. So far, neither Greece nor Turkey has successfully come to terms with this problem.

The way this plays out is that in Greece, the ancient sites are simply archeological curiosities with historical significance. In Turkey, however, the spiritual power of religious spaces is openly and unself-consciously acknowledged. This makes a visit to Turkey satisfying in a way that a visit to Greece is not—or, at least not to me.

Turkey is a country that will be very important to the future of world events. The roots of democracy and liberty are very deep. They are not a function of a westernized elite. Turkey is the place where a new public role for Islam will be worked out.

Monday, June 1, 2015

How to be Spiritual but not Religious

6/1/2015—It is beginning to dawn on people that this nonreligion thing is going to be difficult. Hence Molly Worthen’s piece in the New York Times yesterday entitled Wanted: A Theology of Atheism. The idea is to get away from the “ill-tempered nihilists” image, says Worthen.

Well, actually no. The goal is to get away from the “good without God” self-confidence. The need is not, as Worthen believes, for “a confident humanist moral philosophy.” It is the opposite. Finally, nonbelievers must come to see how bereft humanism is. Humanism is just as implausible as theism. That should be the starting point. Then, maybe we could get somewhere.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Krugman on the Economics of the Average American

5/30/2015—Since I have been so critical of Paul Krugman on trade, it seems fair to acknowledge his importance in reminding American policy-makers—-or even just the comfortable top 25%--of the reality of life for everybody else.

He has done this before, but he did it again in yesterday’s New York Times, in a column entitled The Insecure American. Krugman is giving a kind of overview of a new Federal Reserve Study on the financial well-being of American households. He writes specifically that he “hope[s]” readers will not find any of his statistics surprising, but Krugman is plainly worried that well-off people have forgotten what life is like.

Krugman begins with conservative bashing—-not from the study, of course. Three quarters of those who self-identify as conservatives think the poor have it easy because of government benefits.

Do you know anybody like this? I don’t. Instead, people I know—-and this would be true not only of conservatives but of most people—-would say it is hard to be poor. But we have no idea how hard it is. Just watching people taking two buses at 5:15 a.m. to get to a job while dropping children off at daycare—and those are healthy, young people with jobs. Seeing them you think, how do they do this every day? Don’t blame conservatives for our obtuseness.

Krugman makes three major points. First, life expectancy has not risen much at all for the bottom half—-so don’t raise the retirement age for social security. Second, social security provides almost all the income for 25% of Americans over 65—-so don’t cut benefits.

Third—life is precarious for the bottom half, so don’t cut entitlements for anybody. Krugman is shocked by one finding in particular—-47% of Americans report that they would not the resources to meet an unexpected expense of $400. “$400!” he writes.

This reaction reminded me of a scene from a documentary about public defenders that I watched last week. In an opening scene, a young African-American lawyer despairs because she has worked a deal for pre-trial diversion for a young client accused of some minor crime—shoplifting? Charges dropped if he goes to a program and stays out of trouble for a year. But the condition of the program is that he be out on bail and he and his family never are able to find the money--$500? So, he is probably going to jail, which will change the rest of his life utterly.

Moral of the story—-we should be thankful if life is not utterly hard. We should be generous in spirit toward those for whom it is. We should not be so concerned about other political issues that pure class issues escape us. The political left has so forgotten this last point.

Monday, May 25, 2015

The Future of the Roman Catholic Church

5/25/2015—It is a mark of the richness of the Roman Catholic Church that two men who have recently been beatified, and one now a saint, had conflicts with each other when they lived. I’m speaking of Archbishop Oscar Romero and John Paul II.

I am no expert in these matters. The story of the Pope’s concern about communism and Marxism in Central and South America leading him to blindness concerning the death squads and oppression in some of these countries, notably El Salvador, where Archbishop Romero was murdered, is well known. On the other hand, there are those who argue that the story is largely a myth. You could look at Filip Mazurczak’s piece from February 2015 to see this other side.

I am most interested, however, not in the conflict, but in how the Church could respond so well to the needs of the time in these disparate areas of the globe. JP II was needed in Poland. His stance against the inhuman oppression of communism will stand forever in the annals of human rights.

But liberation theology and the stance of the Church with the poor against overwhelming economic and military power, symbolized by Romero, was also needed then and is needed today in the face of global capitalism. The Church is able to respond to both. Can this be said of any other institution in the world today?

This brings me to Ireland. The media is reporting the very welcome news of Ireland’s endorsement of gay marriage as a defeat for the Church. And I suppose you could say that. The Church spends a lot of time and effort opposing gay marriage.

But the stories only obliquely refer to the illegality of abortion in Ireland. This matter, a crucial matter, a matter of life and death apparently finds no similar cultural change. Perhaps it is not a decline of the Church. Perhaps the Church is simply wrong about gay marriage.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Finally, a Krugman Column on the Trade Pact

5/23/2015—Well, I finally got the op-ed from Paul Krugman on the proposed trade pact (the Trans-Pacific Partnership—TPP) that I have been waiting for. The column appeared Friday.

If you read the column really carefully, Krugman is, as he has said in his blog, mildly opposed. But it is a mealy-mouthed opposition. There are reasonable people on both sides, he says.

Krugman ends up writing mostly about how the Obama Administration has not been forthright. The President has not made the case etc. It's not really about trade, it's about intellectual property—as if protecting property rights is not an aspect of free trade.

Krugman even seems to say that free trade is no longer important—because we have already realized most of the available benefits by generally lowering tariffs.

But this is a real sleight of hand. Many of the opponents of the TPP are opposed to free trade. They believe that we would be better off with tariffs and other trade barriers. If they are wrong about that, shouldn't Krugman have said so?

Krugman wants the issue to be technical and narrow. But it is not. The Democratic Party is turning against trade. Krugman disagrees with this new thrust. Why does he not say so?

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Martin Heidegger’s Humanism

5/19/2015—Well, that title is certainly misleading. Heidegger made clear that he was not a part of humanism in the Letter on Humanism. Every humanism is grounded in metaphysics that Heidegger was trying to overcome.

But yesterday, in reading Heidegger’s Contributions to Philosophy, I came across indications of the place of the human being that I could only call humanism.

The terms will be strange upon first hearing them. The subtitle of Contributions is Of the Event. The event is that which appropriates the human being. (You could return to the statement in Introduction to Metaphysics—the human being is that being for whom being is an issue).

Heidegger writes often of the gods or the god. You could hear divinity. But you could also hear history. Creativity. Holiness. Significance. Heidegger places the Supreme Being of Christian and Jewish thought in the tradition of metaphysics. So he is not speaking of a being when he speaks of God.

Here are the two sentences that struck me. “[The fissure of being] can come into question only if the truth of beyng as event lights up, specifically as that of which the god has need in such a way that the human being belongs intrinsically to the event.” “The appropriating event conveys god to the human being, even while it assigns the human being to god.”

In some way, Heidegger sees being as between the human being and the god. The point for me is not just that the human being is claimed—Heidegger would write that expressly in the Letter on Humanism. The point for me is that the god needs the claimed human being.

This is not a recapitulation of Christian thought, though it evokes Christian thought. It is an essential task of humans. God—the call of what is essential here and now—comes to us and we are thereby claimed.

This is a way to think human life that could be called religious, though Heidegger would point out that such universalisms are metaphysical. This thinking calls forth a credible way of life outside the usual categories of religion and nonaffiliation. There is something important for humans to be.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Where Is the Democratic Party Leadership on Trade?

5/18/2015—I thought pandering to the base was a Republican Party monopoly. Apparently not. Specifically, where is Paul Krugman on the Trans-Pacific Partnership—the Trade Deal?

In his op-eds, Krugman is pro-free trade. But he has been mostly silent on the opposition in the Senate by Democrats to the TPP. I had thought that Krugman was afraid to say he supports the deal because Democratic Party sentiment is against it. Turns out, if you read his blog, he mildly opposes the deal and does not think it that important. He says it is not really a trade deal.

But there is a larger point here. The New York Times today ran a story about a closed refrigerator plant in Galesburg, Illinois that Barack Obama had noted in his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech. It’s still closed. The workers are still out of work or underemployed.

In other words, the argument is not just over this trade deal, but still over the NAFTA. On this issue, Krugman originally supported free trade, rather strongly, but in the telling by William Greider in the Nation in 2013, Krugman has since pulled back in his support.

Look, I don’t know about trade. I assume that it is generally a very good thing. And even closed factories in the US would probably have closed anyway, free trade or no. But I can be persuaded by a real debate.

But what is needed is that real debate within the Democratic Party—and we are not having it. Right now, there is less discussion of the trade issue in the Democratic Party than over global warming in the Republican Party. Why am I reading about trade in Krugman’s blog and not in his columns? It ought to be possible to decide whether the NAFTA was overall a good thing for America or not. This absence of discussion is more indication of the sickness within our political life than the partisan gridlock in Washington.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Philip Kitcher’s Life After Faith Attacks Transcendence

5/16/2015—Philip Kitcher should have written the book that transforms secularism. The book he did write, Life After Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism, does not appear to be that book.

I’m in the midst of it and having trouble finishing it because it’s sort of boring. As I expected from the book reviews, there is too much attacking religion. The book is supposed to be about life after faith, not about why people leave religious faith. The case against religion is not important and has certainly been done to death. (It’s not important because people don’t leave religious traditions because of arguments and, anyway, why should anyone try to get people to leave religious traditions?)

But I am struck by how Philip (I’m trying out first names in an attempt to promote human solidarity) defines the basic terms of the religion/secular divide. On page 6, in the setup, he writes that secularism (I hate the term secular humanism—the point is the truth of reality of which humans are just a part, not the whole thing) demands of religion a reply to only one question—“[t]he core of secularist doubt is skepticism about anything ‘transcendent.’”

Philip describes the transcendent as “something beyond the physical, organic, human world… .” Now, leaving aside human world—if Philip means materialism, why not just say so?--obviously, love and music are beyond the “physical, organic.” Or, maybe later in the book, Philip will explain how all of existence is rooted in the physical, which it is, but humans do not yet understand the connections. Think of the brain and consciousness.

But I don’t think Philip is going in that direction. He also writes a revealing additional description of transcendence in relation to Christian resurrection—“there was no abrogation of normal physical and organic processes.”

Well, OK. But a very different claim. Somewhere I have written—probably more than once—the world is all there is, but there is more to the world than meets the eye. If all it means to be secular is not to believe in things that violate scientific laws as we know them, a lot of religion remains quite safe. Wittgenstein (not using Ludwig) answered Philip years ago in two observations about early tribes—their religions told many stories, but not that enemies’ heads exploded during battles and when they carved weapons, they did so with exactness and not by myth. In other words, early man did not abrogate the laws of science. There remains a great big mysterious world of otherness out there without denying anything scientific.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Religion Trends in America

5/13/2015—I suppose that I should be expected to be happy about the news reported yesterday by the Pew Research Center that the group of which I am a member, the religiously unaffiliated—the nones—is rapidly growing. But I’m not.

The numbers of startling. As of 2014, the nonaffiliated are now 23% of the adult American population. (Presumably, the real percentage is even higher since this is self-reporting). Meanwhile, the percentage of self-identified Christians is 71%. Sounds high, but it was 81% just a few years ago and 90% if I remember correctly in 1963.

Well, what of it? My concern is with the future of American life. We forget that, according to the sociologist Robert Putnam—the Bowling Alone guy—going to church is one of those aspects of social capital that help wealthier people live better lives and help their children advance—along with other things, like getting and staying married. Today, if people are not going to some kind of church, chances are that their kids are not going to do well.

We don’t think of things this way, of course. But having a church is like any other part of a rich social life. Not having one is not just a declaration of independence from God. It is also cutting one more social tie in life.

One more depressing fact, from Frank Bruni in today’s New York Times—the percentage of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track is higher than ever: 62% to 28%. This trend has continued uninterrupted for the past ten years.

Now of course, there is a sense that we are on the wrong track; by almost any measure the trends are bad for America. But since America is also doing pretty well today by any world standard and much better than we have been since the 2008 economic crisis, you would think the surveys would at least show improvement. But they do not. Is that because religion is also a source of optimism about the future and America is less religious?

America is going to continue to get less religious: 35% of the millennials are unaffiliated. Real Christian commitment is already pretty rare—I noticed last week that many Catholics mistake references at a Catholic funeral to resurrection with references to heaven, for example. There is no point bemoaning this.

But if declining religion is not going to mean declining everything else, nonaffiation is going to have to be translated into new affiliation. I don’t know what social forms that will take. But I do know that nonreligious life is going to have to be social and have substantive content—a story if you will about the nature of reality. A story from which to live.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Reading Heidegger I

5/12/2015—-What is needed for secularism in America, and in the West generally, to flourish? By secularism, I refer, as I do in Hallowed Secularism, to that great movement of what could be called “unchurching” that leads to human life outside of religious myths and images. It is no longer unusual for young people in America to have never lived within the teachings, stories and calendar of any religion.

That is something quite new. Almost all people my age in America grew up within a religion, usually some form of Christianity. And even among people in their forties today, that is the case. But, among people in their thirties and twenties, that trend changes. And this will continue to be the case, more and more.

So, what is needed for religiously nonaffiliated people to live satisfying lives? To answer that, we must think about what religion does for people, even for people who no longer believe in the religion in which they were raised.

Religion offers an orientation to reality. Religion answers the question, what is reality like at its deepest, most real level? Secularism needs to be able to offer answers to that question.

Obviously, I am suggesting that secularism cannot do that now. Instead of serious attempts to grapple with the question of the nature of reality—-of ontology-—secularism currently offers a hodgepodge of materialism, positivism, naturalism, empiricism and rationalism. None of these orientations is really satisfactory, which will become clear once secularism moves away from bashing religion to attempting to ground human life.

Thus, I turn to the philosopher Martin Heidegger for that orientation. I have been reading philosophy and religion with my teacher, Robert Taylor, since the early 1980’s. We started with a group that read Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations line by line for ten years. Robert and I studied a variety of philosophical and theological works after that, but recently we have been studying Heidegger’s great work, Contributions to Philosophy, an hour and a half in the morning, Monday through Thursday. It is slow going.

Under Robert’s influence, I have begun to interpret Heidegger in a very religious way. Indeed, sometimes Heidegger seems to me to be retelling the Christian story in non-dogmatic terms. He writes of God and gods and seems to be referring to divinity itself—certainly he rejects the notion of a supreme being just as he finds the classical metaphysical tradition in general to be at an exhausted end. Divinity is what moves history.

I have not been referring to this Heidegger study, but now I think that I must. Secularism needs Heidegger to set itself on some kind of ground. Gradually, in pieces, I want to explore what that might mean.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Two Odd Things about the Shootings at the Cartoon Contest Last Week

5/10/2015—Happy Mother's Day to all. A secular holiday if ever there was one.

There were two odd things about the reactions to the shootings last week in which a police office shot and killed two would-be terrorists obviously intent on killing people involved in the Mohammed cartoon contest. [I have no idea why authorities will not confirm this motive when it is so obvious. One of the two shooters reportedly had ties of some kind to radical Islamic movement and everyone knows that some Muslims believe it is proper to kill people who demean the Prophet by representing him visually. Anyway, why else would they be there with assault rifles—a Second Amendment display? Actually, that does make you wonder why the NRA did not protest the shootings. Surely it can't be a crime to carry assault weapons in Texas.]

One oddity is the sudden love affair between conservative Christians and the First Amendment. Some years ago, when a crucifix was placed in a jar of urine, some of the same people were calling for an end to government funding for the arts. Now, I realize that ending funding and shooting people are quite different. And even then, no one thought the artist could be put in jail. I only mean that it is not inherently good to make fun of peoples' religious beliefs. Doing so is not something admirable.

But this leads me to the second odd reaction—or rather silence. This is one of those "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is absolutely true that if there are people willing to kill others whose speech offends them, that speech absolutely must go forward, whether or not the speech is offensive. Otherwise, the criminals will decide what can be spoken in this society and we are no longer free.

Where are my fellow first amendment fundamentalists on the left? I almost want to send money to the group that sponsors these cartoon contests. And I certainly want my tax money spent defending them. They are willing to risk their lives for the sake of speech. How many of us are willing to do that?

And as for the fact that they are anti-Muslim—well at the moment, the only point they are making is that some Muslims believe that Islam is inconsistent with free speech. I believe the shootings make their point about that quite well.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Iconic Picture of Burning Silliman Hall

5/6/2015—This year is the 50th anniversary of the famous picture of Silliman Hall burning as a high school football game continues to be played between Mt. Herman and Deerfield Academy. So much of my life was formed at Mt. Herman that I have to mention here that this photo appeared in the New York Times today. Why today I have no idea.

Mt. Hermon is a good reflection of the trends in society that led us to the secularized place we are now in America. When I went there from 1966-1970, it was still a very Christian school, but was subject to the buffeting of the 1960’s. (The school and its sister school, Northfield, were founded by Dwight Lyman Moody, the great evangelist of the 1890’s.)

A little over 25 years later, when my older daughter graduated, it was still pretty religious, but very much interreligious, with a curriculum emphasizing the world’s religions and their wisdom. But I’m not sure how long that phase lasted. By the time the son and younger daughter graduated, over the next 7 years, my impression is that the religious emphasis was fading under the influence of good works in the world: a sort of combination of psychology and ethics.

I don’t know much about what the school is like today.

The story about the photo emphasizes that today, the football game would have been stopped—too much fear of a lawsuit or some safety danger. Undoubtedly that is true. Undoubtedly, a decline in society.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Choosing to be Good Without God

5/4/2015—I had no idea that there had been a particular Christian response to the claim that atheists can be good without God. Last night I watched the beginning of Time Changer, a self-identified Christian movie from 2002. In the movie, a Professor at Grace Seminary in 1890 has written a book that argues that the Church should teach morality without attaching that teaching to the authority of Jesus Christ. Another Professor, who has seen where such teaching leads because his father invented a time machine, opposes Seminary endorsement of the book. To settle the matter, he sends the author into our future to see for himself.

Not a great movie, but a great question. Satan does not oppose morality. Satan’s enemy is Jesus Christ. People who suppose that if they are good people, they are going to heaven are in for a shock when they end up in hell.

We do see today the decline in confidence about the good and all sorts of experiments are going forward to find a solid ground for making judgments. Sam Harris argues that science can show us what is good. Peter Singer is arguing in a recent book—The Most Good You Can Do—that reason leads us to what he calls effective altruism. And so forth.

The problem is not deciding to do good. The social crisis is that doing the good becomes merely a personal choice. The decline is not in morality as much as it is in authority, just as the movie argues.

So, the question is not what is good. The question is what is binding. Or, as Heidegger is translated—“what holds sway.” Here is where many modern people have a problem—with any claim of authority.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

How to be Spiritual but not Religious

4/29/2015—It is hard not to be religious. It is hard to know what to do. This is more a question of ritual and practice than of belief. Consider the book review by Meghan O’Rourke of The Light of the World by Elizabeth Alexander.

The book is a memoir of the sudden death of Alexander’s husband and her response to it. He was relatively young. They were very much in love. It was sad.

That said, my point here is the difficulty. Here is how O’Rourke puts it: “One might argue, of course, that the recent swarm of grief memoirs is just another manifestation of our confessional culture of self-disclosure. I’m biased — I wrote one of these books myself — but I think what we’re seeing here is something deeper and more useful: a desire to understand and give shape to an experience that defines us, an experience that is ethical and social in nature. How we grieve alone tells us something about who we are together. These books teach us that grief is not something merely to endure, medicate away or ‘muscle through,’ but an essential aspect of life — even a kind of privilege. ‘What does it mean to grieve in the absence of religious culture?’ Alexander asks, devastated by her seemingly unbearable loss, searching for meaning where none initially presented itself.”

You never hear about things like this. But this is what a religious tradition really gives: a way of living. Something to do when your spouse dies. In contrast, the secularist does everything herself. And who can bear that?

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Is Matter Enough? But What is Matter?

4/25/2015—The physicist Freeman Dyson reviews Steven Gimbel’s book, Einstein: His Space and Time in the New York Review. Dyson concentrates on politics and what he calls Einstein’s philosophy, by which he means “a general view of nature.”

It is here that the usual disagreement between believers and nonbelievers (in orthodox religion) comes into play. Atheists and their fellow travelers like to say that we follow reason and evidence. It is a silly claim—like believers saying that they are good, I guess—but it is also incomprehensible, as Dyson shows. We have no idea what nature is like.

According to Dyson, Einstein’s general view of reality “describes nature as a single layer of observable objects with strict causality governing their movements. If the state of affairs at the present time is precisely known, then the laws of nature allow the state at a future time to be precisely predicted. The uncertainty of our knowledge of the future arises only from the uncertainty of our knowledge of the past and present. I call this view of nature the classical philosophy, since all objects obey the laws of classical physics.”

Einstein’s view is that of most of the nonaffiliated. But ten years after Einstein worked this out, Niels Bohr, looking at quantum mechanics as understood by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger, described “the universe as consisting of two layers. The first layer is the classical world of Einstein, with objects that are directly observable but no longer predictable. They have become unpredictable because they are driven by events in the second layer that we cannot see. The second layer is the quantum world, with states that are not directly observable but obey simple laws. For example, the laws of the second layer decree that every particle travels along every possible path with a probability that depends in a simple way on the path.” The two layers are connected by “probabilistic rules.” The future in the first layer is in principle uncertain.

Bohr’s understanding dominated the twentieth century and led to new sciences dominated by mathematical symmetries at the quantum level that were only approximate for the world we know. Both layers are real, but we don’t understand their connection.

Today, however, a new generation of scientists reject Bohr’s dualism. According to Dyson, these new scientists believe that only the quantum world exists and the classical world is an illusion brought about by a process called decoherence that erases many quantum effects.

Then Dyson gives this summary: “there are three ways to understand philosophically our observations of the physical universe. The classical philosophy of Einstein has everything in a single layer obeying classical laws, with quantum processes unexplained. The quantum-only philosophy has included everything in a single layer obeying quantum laws, with the astonishing solidity and uniqueness of the classical illusion unexplained. The dualistic philosophy gives reality impartially to the classical vision of Einstein and to the quantum vision of Bohr, with the details of the connection between the two layers unexplained. All three philosophies are tenable, and all three are incomplete. I prefer the dualistic philosophy because I give equal weight to the insights of Einstein and Bohr. I do not believe that the celestial harmonies discovered by Einstein are an accidental illusion.”

Now this is a physicist writing, a Professor of Physics Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. So, I’m sure this account of our situation is accurate.

Most atheists know nothing of quantum theory. In a vague way, they assume Einstein’s view. They can’t be dualists because that would allow both this world and another world to be real, which would smell religious to them.

But that means, from the perspective of many scientists, atheists believe in an illusion—rather comically, precisely what they accuse religious people of believing.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Reform of Judaism

4/22/2015—Considering Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs A Reformation Now, suggests the question of what other religious traditions need a reformation, from the point of former adherents, anyway. Hinduism on matters of caste? But hasn’t that been worked on quite a bit? Christianity on gender and sexuality? But, again, the tradition is hard at work on these matters. No one I know has a problem with Buddhism.

But what about Judaism? Granted, it is a tiny religion—around fourteen million in the world, mostly in Israel and America. But, for whatever reason, Judaism has an outsized influence on world events. I am not speaking of a world Jewish conspiracy, but that old canard does show the impact that Jews have had.

What is the problem with Judaism? Ironically, it is the same as the root of the problem in Islam—the problem of the other. In Islam, it is an insistence that everyone become a Muslim, or at least an unclarity as to what it means theologically that someone is not a Muslim. In Judaism, it is the meaning of the goyim—of the non-Jews in world history.

Years ago, the Jewish thinker and founder of Jewish Reconstruction, Mordecai Kaplan, called for an end to the concept of chosenness—the idea that Jews are the people chosen by God to be the fulcrum point of world history. But Kaplan’s call has had no effect.

Judaism traditionally teaches that the point of world history is what God has planned for the Jewish people. Eventually, the day is to come when the Jews are reinstalled in Israel and the Kingdom of God will reign. The only suggestion I know of the role of the other nations at that future time is that all the nations will worship God on the hills of Jerusalem.

There are warnings in the Torah that Jews should be especially sensitive to the stranger—“you know the heart of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” And the book of Ruth places an immigrant at the center of Jewish history as the ancestor of King David.

But the horrible history of the Jewish people—exile and death followed by a threatened existence in the modern State of Israel—has hardened Jewish concern for the survival of the Jewish people above all other considerations. So, I never heard religious insistence—that is, in the synagogue—to be kind to the stranger in the sense of the non-Jew in Israel and the West Bank. Nor did I hear that Jerusalem should be shared so that the Muslims may also worship God on the hills of the city. (though, to be fair, the religious sites in Jerusalem are open to all religions, as they were not before 1967).

I am speaking here theologically. There are many Jews in Israel and outside working for peace. And there are many Jews, again in and out, who favor harsh polices out of a feeling of necessity and not out of prejudice against others, who would love not to be threatened. But in both cases, the feelings are essentially secular.

What is the religious meaning of the current situation? What does Judaism teach about the land of Israel and its native population? And its neighbors? Obviously some of the ancient traditions are not good—in the Old Testament, they were to be exterminated. But what about later teachings? I have never heard clear religious thinking here. That is what I mean by the need for a reformation in Judaism.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Campaign Finance Becomes an Issue

4/20/2015—-not two days back from Cleveland and campaign finance has become an issue—-for the moment. As I told the Symposium audience on Friday, the simplest answer and most immediate answer is to eliminate caps on contributions. This would end the era of the super PACs.

But the fact that Mike Huckabee has now proposed this—if he did before, I was not aware of it—is the problem. For the moment, Democrats and liberals oppose this change. If only a few of them switched on this, eliminating contribution limits would pass tomorrow.

So, I asked them to act now. A few phone calls is all it would need and it would accomplish two things—first, put control back with the candidates and therefore with the voters. Right now, voters are told by candidates that they should not be held accountable for independent spending because they are not allowed to control it (which is technically true).

Second, because disclosure requirements are strict for candidates, all the sources of money would be known. Actually, this is not even strictly necessary, since candidates themselves would be forced to disclose or pay the consequences.

As I will show in an article for the Cleveland State Law Review, none of this is inconsistent with other reforms, such as public financing. No need to fix everything at once.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Taking a Break for Campaign Finance Reform

4/16/2015—My responsibilities this year at Duquense Law School have been preventing me from traveling and speaking—-and thinking, actually. But tomorrow, I take a break and head to Cleveland-Marshall Law School to speak at a symposium on campaign finance reform sponsored by the Cleveland State Law Review. The keynote speaker is Professor Larry Lessig, whose book, Republic, Lost, has achieved best-seller status.

I will be proposing the counter-intuitive strategy of eliminating contribution limits as a way of restricting the super PACs. Without contribution limits, money would go to candidates—-an enhancement of democracy—-and legal independence of the super PACs would be gone. That independence is a function of enforcing contribution limits. I am hoping for an op-ed tomorrow in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Going After Faith

4/12/2015—I have always thought that Philip Kitcher is the best of the New Atheists. That is the group that came to the consciousness of the American public around ten years ago arguing against religion. The first wave of the movement culminated in the late Christopher Hitches’ blockbuster, God In Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Other well known members of the group were Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. My own books, particularly American Religious Democracy (2007) and Hallowed Secularism, (2009), which no one can afford to buy, were written in opposition to certain aspects of the New Atheism, though acknowledging the reality that many people were leaving the religious traditions—including the author.

Kitcher was the best of this group because of his compassion for people, especially in Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith in 2007. He knew that religion offered something that people needed and he thought that trumpeting atheism without regard to that was almost cruel.

Kitcher’s recent book, Life After Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism, appears to continue in that vein. I haven’t read it yet so I’m not going to discuss it. I want instead to inquire after its starting point.

Why would anyone want to argue “the case for” an alternative to religion? In much the same way that almost all people born into a religion end up becoming members of that religion without actually evaluating the other religions, people don’t “choose” to cease believing and become secular. Once that happens, people might “choose” to leave or stay in a religious tradition physically, but once the supernatural becomes unreal, that is the end of a certain kind of faith. At least that is what happened to me. (I know that there is a tradition of radical doubt within the religious traditions, which leads to crisis, but that is another matter. In a culture in which the supernatural is in question, doubt need not be experienced as crisis.)

So, why seem to argue against religion and for secular humanism? In his review of Kitcher’s book in the New York Review, Adam Kirsch points out that “secular humanists have the duty to be evangelists.” That is how Kitcher and the others feel--evangelists against religion--and it is the wrong starting point. Since Kitcher has always said that faith is great for those who have it—-something Christopher Hitchens could never admit—-and since faith is not an option for those who don’t, why argue at all? In other words, why should the nonaffiliated write about religion, other than as a resource for secular life?

Therefore, the subheading of Kitcher’s book should have been “Life in Secular Humanism.” Kitcher knows this—-in fact, the blurb on Amazon reads, “Although there is no shortage of recent books arguing against religion, few offer a positive alternative—-how anyone might live a fulfilling life without the support of religious beliefs.”—-so why does Philip still speak of argument? Why does he devote a chapter to vindicating doubt about religion and another to refined religion that does not espouse supernatural belief?

The answer is that Hallowed Secularism—-or secular humanism-—is hard. Criticizing religion is easy.

Philip Kitcher does not accept the responsibility of this hour. How do we now live, now that God is dead? It is a simple question. But the question haunted Nietzsche. I doubt that the answer to that question is any kind of humanism. Humans are not in control of reality.

It may be that among the nonaffiliated, the differences may finally have to be confronted, which the preoccupation with religion still prevents. For me, the category of the transcendent is the starting point. Phillip points out that the transcendent cannot function the way traditional religion does. Fair enough. But is the transcendent real? Does it teach humans something lasting about reality? If it is real, then it, not reason, is our proper starting point.

The holy does not disappear when one stops going to church, synagogue, mosque or temple. It just becomes harder to live by it.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Only Ten Years Stopping an Iranian Bomb

4/8/2015—I feel like I am living in some fantasy land. I heard an analyst today say that the proposed deal with Iran is a mistake because it would only delay an Iranian bomb for ten years and after that it might be easier for Iran to build a nuclear weapon than it is today.

I would have thought that the guarantee that we would have ten years breathing space would be greeted with rapture. A lot can happen in ten years, including peace and regime change or reform.

Everything I have heard about the deal makes it sound like the real thing. And the extremes to which critics are going to criticize it makes it sound all the better.

Which brings me to the real point. What is it about Iran that makes the Israeli government so crazed? Yes, Iran backs Hezbollah and other opponents of Israel. But really doesn’t Saudi Arabia do the same thing? And Israeli seems close to a tacit deal with the Saudis.

My theory is that the problem for the Israelis is that the Iranians are actually religious. The government of Israel is basically secularist. And that is true even on the right. There is a fear of what a really religious state might do—drop a bomb to bring on the apocalypse, maybe.

But Iran has not acted in such a weird way. The country suffered horrible loses in a war with Iraq. I don’t believe they would welcome an Israeli retaliatory bomb dropped on Tehran.

We made the mistake with the Soviet Union of thinking it would risk nuclear war. That was never true. It is not true of Iran either.

Friday, April 3, 2015

Making the Worst of Religion

4/3/2015—I hope my reaction was not partisan. One of the best pieces of news in years was the President’s announcement yesterday of a possible, not-yet-quite-final nuclear weapons deal with Iran. The very specificity of the announcement seemed to shock everybody. The New York Times referred to it as “surprising” and even Republicans in Congress were hesitant to condemn it. A real deal would change the politics. American does not want more war. Especially in the Middle East.

So, what headline does the Tribune Review run in its Passover story? Nuclear Deal in Iran Casts Pall Over Jewish Holiday in Pittsburgh.

Now, granted this newspaper is an opponent of President Obama. But it is still a newspaper. If the basic reaction the reporters had encountered had been cautious, overwhelming joy, they would have reported it. (My experience with the Tribune Review is that the reporters are very fair).

So, how does that look to everybody? It looks like another example of a religion in the way of peace.

This occurs at the same time that Good Friday arrives on the heels of religious believers forced to retreat on discrimination against gay people in Indiana and Arkansas.

Welcome to the new face of religion—discrimination and war.

Of course religion is supposed to stand up to the culture. So, all I can say here is that the religions in question are wrong. I’m all in favor myself of protecting that 70-year-old florist from delivering flowers to a gay wedding if she does not want to. But if that religious protection had been coupled with a gay marriage bill in the first place, and the rest of the bill linked with protections of sexual orientation from discrimination, none of the controversy would have happened. Religious believers offer gays nothing and then are surprised at the reaction.

Where is the lure of religion? Where is its surpassing beauty in a world of gray ordinariness? It’s there. Many, many millions will experience it during the next few days in Good Friday and Easter and Passover. But one of humankind’s reservoirs of insight is drying up, like a California lake.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

What Can the Cross Mean?

4/1/2015—What can the cross mean to the nonreligious? (I mean the nonaffiliated). After all, the cross is the intensely Christian symbol. What can it mean for the rest of us?

I’ve been reading Martin Heidegger’s difficult masterpiece, Contributions to Philosophy. Heidegger is on the traces of being. Heidegger writes that the original thrust of western philosophy turned from being to beings. That tradition of metaphysics culminated in the various sciences and is now exhausted. He is seeking a new beginning.

Philosophy seeks after the truth of being. Being is a formal symbol, which can be contemplated as how the holy, the sacred, comes to us. We have a hint of being as refusal.

Refusal is the mysterious secret of human life. We don’t know much. We can’t know much. But we can know that.

What is Jesus’ last moment on the cross but the refusal? “Why have you forsaken me?” God does not speak or reassure.

Yes, I know it is all happiness ever after on Easter, but that is not true of the Gospel of Mark. In Mark, the only way we know that the Kingdom of God endures after the cross is through the life of the participant.

Heidegger presents a new understanding of Christian knowing.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

How to Think about Religious Exemptions

3/29/2015—For the last several years, I participated in a group that urged legislators to enact compromises on the issue of gay marriage. The legislature would amend the state’s marriage law to allow gay marriage, while at the same time enacting a religious exemption from participating in gay marriage. The group’s intellectual leader was the nation’s leading expert on church state, Douglas Laycock.

The group’s raison d’ĂȘtre has disappeared because the courts have brought about gay marriage judicially, thus leaving legislatures only to deal with the issue of religious exemption.

But religious exemption by itself, without the compromise of permitting gay marriage in the first place, presents a serious political problem. To understand the problem, and to see how it is playing out in Indiana right now, the reader must understand that there are two ways to think about a religious exemption from any kind of general law.

Perhaps the classic way of thinking about a religious exemption is to imagine a Jewish or Muslim prisoner who requests not to eat pork. The religious believer is focused only on his or her own religious life in such an example. The religious exemption is not intended to be a protest against the policy generally of prisoners eating pork.

But now imagine a devout prison guard, perhaps a Roman Catholic, who opposes the death penalty. The guard requests a religious exemption from participating in an execution partly out of concern for his or her own religious life but partly also as a protest against the underlying policy of the death penalty.

It is not usually necessary to distinguish between these two ways of thinking about religious exemptions because the religious believer in the second situation is usually such a minority that the protest part of the exemption is practically insignificant, politically speaking. The prison guard might hope to delegitimize the death penalty through a religious witness, but has no realistic expectation that this will happen.

But now consider the case of gay marriage. Although proponents of religious exemptions like to frame the issue in terms of the first example – – the 70-year-old Florist, who only wishes to be left alone by a gay couple about to be married – – the clearly political message being propounded by requests for gay marriage exemptions is opposition to gay rights. Religious believers are using exemptions to try to halt or retard the legitimation of gay marriage in particular and gay rights in general.

It is really not fair for proponents of religious exemptions in this context play such a double game. That is why compromise, like the Utah example in which discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was linked with a religious exemption, can work, whereas simple religious exemptions spark controversy, as in Indiana right now.

I am not suggesting that anything can be done to limit the problem of religious exemptions in the current political context. But it would be helpful to think in these terms. It would help explain to religious believers who are not involved in the gay-rights issue to understand why people might oppose religious exemptions. And it would also help proponents of gay rights and gay marriage to more clearly delineate what they can accept and cannot accept by way of religious exemptions.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Holding Back the Chinese Tide

3/25/2015—Is there anything as pathetic as an aging power attempting to retard the rise of a new one? Or, as pointless? Thus, the failure of the Obama Administration to convince our allies, especially Germany, to join China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was both comical and embarrassing. Great Britain, Germany and France joined last week. Italy to follow.

Joining the Bank should have been seen as positive--as a way of bringing the Chinese into the international community in a way that might have enabled our European allies to influence their new partner in territorial disputes China is having with its neighbors. (Of course, our allies can still play that role).

But really what was the point? China is a rising power and very wealthy. And, unlike the US, able to act coherently. The surest way to conflict with China—unnecessary conflict—is to refuse to recognize that fact. In setting up this bank, China was not invading Ukraine. Was not insisting on its own sphere of influence to the exclusion of anyone else. China was expecting to use its new power to expand its influence. That is what nations do.

If this was a subtle game—I doubt it—reassure Japan and South Korea by appearing to oppose the Chinese Bank, it was too subtle for me. I was just embarrassed by my country.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

The Problem for Post-Netanyahu American Judaism

3/21/2015—Let’s assume that Netanyahu ran a racist campaign in which he revealed his true colors. He believes Arab Israelis have no place in Israel. He opposes creation of a Palestinian State. He wants the West Bank for Israel. He’s willing to bomb Iran. Etc.

Now what for American Judaism? Jews have been acting like supporting Israel through American power is a given and a good thing. That stance is now impossible for some American Jews because the policies above, which a majority in Israel voted for, do not deserve American support. So, support for Israel will have to end, or at least diminish. The Jewish vote in America is about to split. The Republican candidate in 2016 might get one-third of it. And maybe more than one-third of Jewish money.

But that is just politics and might be reversed by a deal with Iran that would force Congressional Republicans and Netanyahu to back down. America is not in a mood for war with Iran. The Democratic nominee for President in 2016 would love to run on such an agreement.

More difficult for American Jews is the religious question. Just what is Judaism apart from support for Israel? What is Judaism apart from identity?

The pre and post-war period of Jewish thought looks now like a golden age that ended. Martin Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel were widely read in America. Who is read now among young American Jews? And the religious current was so strong that it could fruitfully merge with secular thought, as in the work of the Jewish existentialist Victor Frankl in Man’s Search for Meaning. This is no longer happening in America.

The next step for American Judaism will have to be back to theology. Or, should I say, back to religious thinking. It is not clear that the resources are there for such a step.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Sustainable Political Thinking

3/17/2015—The current conservative insistence that social disintegration is unrelated to money—so that the current push by the left to do something about income inequality will not raise taxes on the rich—is curious. It proceeds from an assumption that income inequality is not inherently bad, so that it is necessary to invent another goal other than redistribution to justify it. But, if worker productivity gains do not translate into more money for workers, then the bosses are stealing money that properly belongs to workers. You can correct that in different ways—stronger unions for example—but you don’t need a theory of culture to do something about it.

But the conservative drumbeat, by Ross Douthat and George Will, for example, reminds me that there is more to political life than money. In the same way that ecological systems must be sustainable, political life must also be sustainable. Political life that is nothing but argument by one side against the other is not sustainable.

There are different ways of thinking about the styles of political life. Right now, all America has is ideological confrontation. (It is not really ideological). That is getting us nowhere. This style suggests far more differences among Americans than is really present. We exaggerate our differences because our political goals are merely oppositional.

What would a more sustainable political life look like? I’m not sure. And maybe it is not possible. I’m told that the Permaculture Movement has an aspect of decision-making style. And it was once thought that President Obama’s career as a community organizer would aid him in building consensus in Washington. But that did not happen.

Maybe here, in styles of thought, is where philosophy could be of service to politics. Not philosophy in the analytic style of logic—though a little of that could not hurt in politics—but Martin Heidegger’s questioning after being. A more soulful politics. On the other hand, did Michael Lerner’s politics of meaning go anywhere in the 1990’s?

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Would Prosperity Matter?

3/14/2015—The extent to which working people have contributed to the prosperity of the owners of capital is truly astounding. Since 1979, I read today, productivity has grown over 60%, but wages have climbed only 6%. Put another way, if wages had matched productivity, which in economic theory they should, the median wage today would be $54,000 rather than $35,000. That is a lot of money and it has gone to shareholders of corporations rather than to workers.

Now, what America should do about that, or whether anything could be done about that, is one question. But another question is whether a more equal distribution of the fruits of labor would make any difference.

That second question asks what you think the basic problem in America is. If you think the basic problem is economic, then obviously you try to do something directly about the money. But if you think the basic problem is something else, then you do something about the money, but also you look to do something else as well.

A friend of mine said last night that the basic problem in America is a general social breakdown. Students are dropping out of school. Families are not being formed. There is a general lack of social solidarity. There is great distrust.

If he is right, let’s ask whether a fairer distribution of income might contribute to more social cohesion? Would students be more likely to stay in school if they saw themselves getting really well paying jobs? They might. If the median income were much higher, would some people marry and raise children who now decide not to do so? They might. So, even if we accept what could be called a conservative view of America’s troubles, that the troubles are moral, we might decide that economic inequality has to be aggressively dealt with.

For me, the more fundamental breakdown is not economic or moral. It’s hard for me to give it a name. Let me say for now that the problem is that we hate each other. And it may even be deeper than that. Our language may be exhausted. (But that would not prevent us from doing something to spread the wealth around.) Maybe all our troubles start there.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Well, Some Dare Call it Treason

3/11/2015—The news is dominated by the letter from 47 Republican Senators to the Iranian leadership explaining that they will not be bound by any deal President Obama makes with Iran. Even the sympathetic Daily News called them “Traitors” on the front page.

Well, why not? Why not send such a letter? Another sympathetic newspaper, the Tribune Review, wrote today that the letter was giving President Obama a dose of his own medicine. We have a President who legislates in violation of the separation-of-powers and a Congress that conducts its own foreign policy, also in violation of the separation-of-powers.

Yesterday, New York Times columnist David Brooks lamented relativism as it affects family life. He was referencing, if I remember correctly, Robert Putnam’s new book, Our Kids. The poor lack values, Brooks wrote.

But Brooks is wrong to see nihilism only among the poor and only in intimate life. Here, in the President’s Executive orders and the Netanyahu speech and Iranian letter, is the face of nihilism. For nihilism is the lack of restraint that comes when there are no standards other than my own will. It is the will to power. Why shouldn’t the President act to promote good policy as he sees it? Why shouldn’t the Republicans try to protect the nation from the folly they fear?

None of us has faith that our existing institutions will vindicate the good in the long run. So, we have to act. We are ensnared in what Heidegger called the nihil, the nothing. All that is left is self-assertion. And it is on all sides.

I’m not without hope that we will not remain in this plight. Heidegger famously said “only a God can save us.” And he did not mean a return to old-time religion. But he did mean that a saving could happen.

The question is, how does it happen? I wonder if we could begin to prepare in law?

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Watching the Left Behind Movie

3/7/2015—Last night I watched the highly entertaining Left Behind movie, starring Nicholas Cage, Chad Michael Murray and Cassi Thomson, and based sort of loosely on the novels by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye.

Let me say up front that, as Jackson Cuidon wrote in Christianity Today, this is not a Christian movie in the sense of raising any serious issues of theology about the Rapture in which believers are taken up to heaven by God before the tribulations of the end times can begin. Instead, it is, on the surface, a basic disaster movie with a plane landing with little fuel and a kind of alien movie, in which supernatural forces disrupt human life. Or maybe, as Cuidon also writes, it’s basically Harry Potter. [He also points out the cruelty with which a dwarf is treated in the movie as showing its unchristian heart.]

The rapture event is portrayed as entirely a matter of belief. You get taken because you believe something—presumably Christ as your savior. Other pious believers are not taken. This is symbolized by a Muslim in the movie. Undoubtedly, the producers were afraid to use a Jew in this context. This avoids the issue of the liberal Christian. In the movie, the world is binary—you are either a recognizable believer or not (or a child—all the children are taken). No instance of a rich person not taken because, although professing faith, he amassed too much money. One insincere minister is shown.

One issue raised in the movie is whether a loving God would act this way. Thomson’s character doubts it. Lots of people are killed, after all, when the Rapture happens. Airplane pilots are taken at a higher rate it seems than other adults.

Nor is the question raised whether Mom, who is taken, should have renounced Christ to be with her daughter in her time of need.

But I have more sympathy for the movie’s religiosity than Cuidon does. It’s very clear that the characters who are not taken are lost. A number of them are conventionally sinful—Cage is about to have an affair, for example. But some—Murray and Thomson—are not. They are good people who have not thought deeply about what human existence is about. They are brave and even loving, but they are in a kind of limbo. And because of that, they have no views on the structure of existence, human or otherwise. No critique by them of economics or anything else. Murray, the famous reporter, is asked about the tsunami he covered. He criticizes a believing woman who stayed with her child when she should have evacuated because God would protect her. But this is just the joke about God and the rowboat. (“I sent a rowboat to save you.”)

Revealingly, when he is asked by Thomson about the meaning of the tsunami, he has no answer. Not even, all those people could have been saved if more money had been spent on warnings.

So, Left Behind is a kind of wake-up call after all. Don’t drift through life. Make a decision. Not about religion, but about reality.