Hey, Rev. Wright, here’s a sermon for you to preach.

I’m having a Gollum-like internal struggle over the polygamy raid in Texas.  On the one hand, I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and protecting the innocent, so I can get behind the idea of saving all the children from general religious craziness.  I’m also not overly religious, so I have no sympathy in their “moral” defense.  And yet . . . isn’t there something inherently disturbing about law enforcement and child protective services storming the bigamist beaches, as it were, ripping dozens of children from the breasts of their mothers and fathers on nothing more that the fact that they all live in a town where a couple of people have been accused of rape?

I believe in statutory laws, to some extent (I have problems with the application more than anything else).  I understand that polygamy is, at least, a statutory no-no.  But this one is not passing the smell test for me.  I don’t want 13-year olds forced into marriage with 50-year olds.  I don’t want children brainwashed into some sort of mindless, communal servitude.  But I also think that parents should, within bounds, be able to raise their children as they wish.  And I certainly don’t think that the police should be able to take my kids away solely based on the fact that one of my neighbors raped a girl and we just happen to go to the same church. 

If the authorities had arrested just the specific alleged offenders and taken them to jail, I’d be all for it.  But to sweep through an entire town on the accusations of a few people is a bit much for my conservative anti-authoritarian streak. 

So, what say you, dear reader?  Is this just a visceral response to polygamy?  Do you think the State acted appropriately here, and, if so, do you really think the children, as a group, are better off now?

“What gross deception and fatal delusion! Although very considerable benefit might be derived from strengthening the hands of Congress, so as to enable them to regulate commerce, and counteract the adverse restrictions of other nations, which would meet with the concurrence of all persons; yet this benefit, is accompanied in the new constitution with the scourge of despotic power, that will render the citizens of America tenants at will of every species of property, of every enjoyment, and make them the mere drudges of government. The gilded bait conceals corrosives that will eat up their whole substance.”

 I’m sure we’re going to be the best of friends.

An interesting commentary by Father Neuhaus on the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (who, as many of you know, is one of my personal heroes):

Then, and still today, there are some for whom Dr. King was not “black enough.” That note was sounded already in the mid-1960s with the rise of the “black-power movement.” Now-forgotten figures such as Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) derided King as “d’Lord.” White radicals, and radicalized liberals of the political class, cheered them on as they declared that King’s day was past. King was accustomed to receiving death threats from whites, but now he was receiving death threats from blacks who accused him of being an Uncle Tom. When Dr. King was killed in 1968, many on the left said privately, and some said publicly, that it was just as well, since he had outlived his time.

And now, exactly forty years later, these arguments are being revisited. Last Friday in this space, I wrote about Senator Barack Obama’s Philadelphia address on race. While criticizing some of the more bizarre statements of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the senator said, “I could no more disown him than I could disown the black community.” Whatever Obama’s intentions, the implication is that the Rev. Wright is representative of the black community. Thus, however inadvertently, did he and some of those who wrote in defense of his speech reinforce an ugly stereotype of blacks being just a little, and maybe more than a little, crazy. The suggestion is a vile slander of the great majority of black Americans.

(LvBen)

The Federalist Society has an excellent podcast up concerning the Supreme Court case of Riley v. Kennedy, featuring future Supreme Court justice (and, more importantly, fraternity brother of the fedster), Kevin Newsom.

Check it out. It is always a treat listening to Kevin discuss complex legal issues. In my mind, he is, hands down, the most brilliant lawyer of my generation, and I expect that “President” McCain will be appointing him to the federal bench in the near future.

Sorry, Publius, I gotta agree with Ike.

Freedoms and liberties gained outside the rule of law always end up causing more harm than good in the long run. Therefore, while I certainly appreciate and embrace many of the results from the Warren Era of the Supreme Court, the fact remains that Warren was an awful Chief Justice, who penned and cobbled together some of the most pathetically-reasoned opinions in the Court’s history. Indeed, as some constitutional scholars have demonstrated, some of the Warren Court’s decisions can be justified on different grounds vis-a-vis the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. 

Thus, while Publius and I are in agreement that rogue Southern officials deserved to be smacked down with impunity by the feds for their outrageous, illegal, and immoral resistence to recognizing the natural/civil rights of African Americans, this governmental rebuke should have come from Congress and not the Supremes. We have three branches of government and separation of powers for a reason, folks, and if our elected legislators aren’t doing their jobs, then they need to be voted out of office by “we the people.”

The rule of law is not simply “abstract logic and interpretative theory.” It is (or should be) much more than that. As Cicero once remarked, “We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free.” And this “bondage” requires that we work to eradicate injustices, wherever we find them, through the system designed by the founders/framers, rather than by creating law out of wholecloth.

Reason has a good piece up on the anti-discrimination measure recently approved by Michigan voters.  Here is a taste:

 The Michigan initiative prevailed even though its supporters were outspent 2 to 1, despite opposition from both Governor Jennifer Granholm and her Republican challenger, Dick DeVos. It won despite hysterical and deceptive ads that compared the proposal to Hurricane Katrina and Sept. 11, and despite false claims that the measure would end to public funding for breast cancer screenings.

The initiative’s opponents have depicted this victory as the result of white men fighting to retain their privilege. But maybe it’s really about Americans taking action to end a regrettable detour in the battle for true civil rights.

Paul Beston wrote about the Michael Richards case today. In so doing, he invoked the question of taboos. I think taboos do explain the powerful reaction to Richards’ outburst at the Laugh Factory. I wrote about the topic in connection to the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb controversy a couple of years ago:

I have a theory about why Rush’s brief remarks have unleashed so much antagonism. Many will believe it’s just about liberals trying to bring a big conservative down. That’s part of the story, but there’s something larger underneath. Every society must have taboos. We need to know the difference between sins and virtues so we can order our lives and live in community. In short, knowing what is right and wrong is the key to social order.

America has witnessed a radical re-ordering of our conception of what is good and bad. Socially useful taboos like unmarried cohabitation, having children out of wedlock, adultery, consumption of pornography, and divorce have all been transformed into acceptable activities through a powerful shove from the cultural elite and correspondingly widespread practice. G.K. Chesterton once famously complained about the rich preaching their vices to the poor and introducing them to ruin. He was right. The old sins aren’t sins any more and we’ve paid a certain price for that. Just ask any child of a single mother who hosts a series of transient males in the home.

But sins don’t disappear and leave a vacuum. We have a moral sense and we will exercise it on something. The ever-considerate cultural elite did not leave us empty-handed. Commandments they destroyed have been replaced by others more favorable to people of fashion. The sin that now stands center stage is the improperly crafted negative remark about anything having to do with race, gender, sexual orientation, or non-dominant religions.

I hasten to add that Rush’s remarks on McNabb were nothing like Richards’ blast of racial slurs. But the general point about taboos holds. We will exercise our sense of moral outrage about something. We just aren’t sure what that will be at any given point in time.

Thoughts?

A fitting tribute to one of my personal heroes.

A nice video tribute re: the efforts of Coach Paul “Bear” Bryant to break down racial barriers in Alabama.

Who has finally had “enough.”

So it seems to me that a proper objection to the sort of renewal of the Voting Rights Act that most Dems and Republicans currently want (e.g. just extend it as is) is that it singles out certain jurisdictions for “emergency” requirements.  It certainly does seem unfair, so why don’t Republicans just offer an amendment extending those requirements to “all” jurisdictions.  I’ll bet local officials in Minnesota and Idaho and California won’t be too much in favor of having the Justice Department “pre-screening” everything they do vis-a-vis elections.  Plus, there’s a political bonus: if Democrats object, they can *only* do so by arguing that the South is run by a bunch of racist bigots who, freed from federal supervision, would quickly resurrect Jim Crow.

I’m far, far from an expert in this - what am I missing?

…if the FBI would look into a film like the one in this story, but showing someone destroying the Bible instead?

I’m guessing the answer is no.

A great MLK quote, courtesy of Jonah Goldberg:

So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime—the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.*

Letter from Birmingham Jail (I added the highlighted portion of this excerpt to give the quote further context)