Appeals court assails Bush administration legal argumentation.

The three-member court, which was made up of two Republican judges and one Democrat, was particularly pointed in its criticism of the argument that evidence is reliable because it appears on multiple documents.

“The government insists that the statements made in the documents are reliable because the State and Defense Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case,” the court wrote. “This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true.”

The judges compared the argument to the logic in Carroll’s nonsense poem, in which a hapless crew hunts for a creature that is never quite defined. The Bellman, the ship’s leader, led his men across the ocean, guided by a map that was just a blank piece of paper. He rallied and reassured his crew simply by repeating himself.

“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true,” the Bellman says in the poem.

“Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has ’said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true,” the court wrote.

I’ve been in Maine since Friday, attending the Northern New England SDA campmeeting. It’s been misty and rainy and misty again. As Bert and I would say, “The air is thick with humdiddy.” I had to go into town (2 miles) to the Starbucks next to L.L. Bean to find an Internet connection. I gave a talk to the men’s ministry group yesterday morning, and will give three talks on young adult ministry on Friday. We’re having a good time connecting with old friends, college classmates, and relatives.

Simon Wiesenthal Center denounces leadership of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for withdrawing statement on antisemitism.

So, I’m in Vermont, and I need to find a place with WIFI. I asked at a bookstore, and they weren’t sure. A college student working in the store didn’t even know what it was. But the proprietor thought maybe the shop next door had it. They did. Ben and Jerry’s.

We’re heading to Vermont tomorrow (Wednesday); on Friday we’ll go on to Freeport, ME, for the Northern New England Conference campmeeting (brochure). I’ll be speaking Sunday morning and three times on Friday, July 4.

Senator Barack Obama is getting hit hard from folks like Francis Beckwith and James Dobson for his comments about faith in public life. After reading the histrionic broadside against Dobson from Americans United, I was inclined to side with Dobson.

Having read the two year old speech by Obama, I’m more inclined to agree with his main points.

Dobson’s skin is a bit thin if he gets upset by this comment:

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?

All Obama is doing here is acknowledging that Christians take different views, and even if everyone was a Christian, Christians don’t agree amongst themselves!

The main point folks take exception to is this:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. … Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.

Now that seems like simple pragmatism to me. If I’m going to persuade people who don’t accept my religious beliefs, I have to use other arguments–I have to appeal to philosophical and natural law arguments. That seems like a no-brainer to me. St. Paul did it when speaking to Greeks.

Does not even mention their antisemitism.

Paul McCain minces no words when he says when he thinks of a Lutheran pastor who leaves for another denomination.

Police in Yorkshire are demanding pub patrons remove their hats, so the spy cams can see them better.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court says you have a right to an attorney from the time you are brought before a judge–they can’t put it off for six months, as was done to a Texas man.

And a federal appeals court said the president can’t detain indefinitely as an “enemy combatant” someone who never took up arms against the US–and, the government concedes, never intended to.

Two good decisions that rein in the growing power of the executive branch in favor of individual freedom and civil rights.

Because I now have a home office, most of my books remain in boxes in my garage. I’m preparing to teach a class on young adult ministry next month at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University in Michigan, and scrambling to gather my notes before I go on vacation, I went to my boxes to find some books that I thought were in there. After looking through every box, I realized they weren’t there. What happened to all those books that once lined my shelves on this topic? Then I remembered–since I had purchased them with archdiocesan funds, I left them at my office when I resigned. It was the right and proper thing to do, of course–but it’s a pain in the neck now that I need them! Fortunately, I kept substantial notes from some of them (from the last time I taught a seminary course on this subject), but it isn’t the same as being able to pull the book off your shelf to see if there’s something else you want to add.

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein writes in Christianity Today: “The Presbyterians Giveth, the Presbyterians Taketh Away.” A draft statement on antisemitism has now been replaced by one with a focus on Israel.

Ominously, the main focus of the new document is no longer anti-Semitism, but Presbyterian responsibility in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Semitism has become essentially a sideshow to the main event, which seeks “to call an end to the Israeli occupation … to criticize Christian Zionism … to speak out against the placement of the separation barrier.” (Perhaps the denomination might convince Hamas to end its daily barrage of lethal rockets directed at civilians. That might be easier if the denomination would begin by mentioning them, but don’t look for such mention in the document.) PC(USA) members are now cautioned to mind their Ps and Qs as they pursue their one-sided quest for peace. They are urged to be vigilant against slipping into the language and imagery of anti-Semitism while all references to PC(USA)’s own malfeasance have been purged.

Whereas the old document treated such language as inherently wrong, the new one shifts the blame to the Jews. Using crucifixion language in regard to Israeli soldiers is problematic only because Jews “inevitably construe” such imagery as anti-Jewish. Rather than commit to fight the scourge of exploding worldwide anti-Semitism, the PC(USA) now adds to the one-sided demonization of Israel (”the oppressive force in the Israeli-Palestinian situation”) that fuels it.

He observes,

The PC(USA) has long been an enigma to Jews. … Organized, vocal friendship for Israel and the Jewish people is stronger than in any other mainline denomination.

At the same time, no other denomination has a group of apparatchiks — at both national and committee levels — that so consistently and undemocratically thwarts the expressed will of its laity regarding the Middle East as does the PC(USA).

He concludes:

Sadly, it is time for Jews, along with proud friends and allies within the PC(USA), to take off their gloves.

I received in the mail today a mass mailing from Americans United for Separation of Church and State with these words on the cover: “The Religious Right wants to change the way you live in Houston.” Really? First, I’m not sure who or what “The Religious Right” is. And do “they” really want to change the way I live? Color me skeptical.

So I open the envelope, and the letter inside has more histrionics, with lots of things in all caps, bolded, underlined, and italicized. We get a little more content: “The Religious Right” includes “religious extremists” like James Dobson. Really? James Dobson a “religious extremist”? I can only laugh.

What is AU’s agenda, as we read between the lines? They’re against marriage. They’re in favor of unrestricted abortion. They’re in favor of euthanizing the handicapped, like Terri Schiavo. They’re in favor of forcing Christian doctors and pharmacists to actively participate in abortion and contraception.

I used to be a member of AU, back in the day they really championed separation of church and state, but they’ve gone beyond that to mere advocacy for Barry Lynn’s liberal agenda. He’s a UCC minister, and he clearly wants to advance the UCC’s liberal agenda through political means. It is he who wants to change how I live in Houston, Texas. I say, “No, thank you.”

Should a specific deity be invoked in public prayer at, say, government meetings? Some don’t think so; they suggest public prayer should be addressed to a generic deity. Problem is, this means that some people get to pray in public as they normally do, and some people have to change the way they pray in order to make others happy. Is this fair? I don’t think so. Also, this asserts a specific theological viewpoint, that everyone who invokes a deity is invoking the same one. I don’t think so. My God is Triune: Jesus Christ, his Father, and their Holy Spirit. My God is not Kali. My solution is simply not to pray in any place I cannot address my God by his name, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s been a long time coming–I have prayed at some public occasions where I went along with the “to whom it may concern” kind of prayer–but I’ve never been happy with that compromise. No more. If people cannot pray according to their conscience, that the occasion is one where no prayer should be said.

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, comment on a study showing that there is widespread antipathy toward Evangelicals among academics, little toward Jews.

The son and I spent three hours at the DPS today so he could get his learner’s permit. Funny thing in Texas law–my daughter, 16, can have the drivers’ school administer the written exam and file all the paperwork for her; since he turned 19 right after graduation, he has to go to the DPS in person. And when it’s time to get the license, the drivers’ school can administer her the road test, but, again, he has to go to the DPS in person. But he will get his full driver’s license, while she gets just phase one of Texas’ graduated license.

Three hours, during which time I read a text on Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood.

In Harrisburg:

State lawmakers Wednesday held up voting on a resolution in recognition of a Muslim group’s upcoming convention after a legislator protested that “the Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God.”Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Butler County, north of Pittsburgh, said he opposed the House’s formal recognition of this weekend’s 60th annual convention in Harrisburg of the U.S. chapter of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

“The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God and I will be voting negative,” he said on the House floor.

Mr. Metcalfe has a thing or two to learn about separation of church and state. He tried to explain himself, but just dug himself in deeper.

We had a strong thunderstorm come by tonight … with 3/4 inch hail.

While it was going on, I was trying to recover some files. I had deleted a user account from Windows, neglecting to save the user data files — and those included lots of pictures. I asked a friend for help, and ended up adding the program, “Recover My Files,” which did a pretty good job.

Steve Knight summarizes arguments of those who say yes.

Rod Dreher links to Washington Times report:

Federal authorities are investigating the actions of a Catholic charity in Richmond which helped a 16-year-old Guatemalan girl to receive an abortion in January, in possible violation of Virginia law.

Officials have called the matter to the attention of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) headquarters in Washington, urging it to prevent any repetition of the incident.

Four employees of Commonwealth Catholic Charities, Richmond, (CCR) have been fired and one supervisor with the bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services agency has been suspended, according to federal sources and a secret April 29 letter written by three bishops to 350 bishops nationwide. …

The unnamed girl, who already had one child, had been fitted with a contraceptive device provided by CCR two months earlier, the letter said. CCR members signed the consent form necessary for a minor to have an abortion and had someone drive her to and from the abortion clinic.

It is illegal in Virginia for a social worker to sign a parental consent form for an abortion. The state’s notification law stipulates that at least one parent, grandparent or adult sibling must give consent.

Federal officials are having to tell the Catholic church to enforce its own teachings on contraception and abortion. Wow.

And it isn’t just a case of a local Catholic Charities employee doing something contrary to policy–the USCCB itself is implicated.

Catholic Charities, meanwhile, is blaming the Bishop of Richmond.

Dreher notes:

This is rich:

“Some members of the MRS staff were not sufficiently aware of church teaching and [USCCB] policy regarding these matters to take stronger and more appropriate actions,” Bishops DiLorenzo, Wester and Driscoll said in a letter to their peers.

Yes, some people who work for the Catholic Church [not just the Catholic Church, but the Catholic bishops!] are apparently unaware that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is the taking of a human life. Really, these bishops expect people to believe that.

Update: GetReligion praises Julia Duin’s religion reporting.

Harper’s: Torture wasn’t an excess by stressed low-ranking soldiers on the ground, but was policy handed down from the top.

The US hid prisoners of war from the Red Cross.

I hit my sixth anniversary as a blogger a couple of weeks ago–I began on June 1, 2002, the day my son became a teenager.

It’s a tricky thing–how do you speak for justice in the Middle East, criticizing Israeli policy, while not sounding antisemitic? The upcoming General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will consider a statement on this subject. The initial draft was praised by Jewish leaders, but the revision (whose appearance surprised many on both sides) has many Jewish organizations fuming (Joint Statement). Jewish Week, JTA, ADL.

Russell Shaw has a new book: Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church. A former communications director for the US Catholic Bishops, he is appalled at the culture of secrecy in the Catholic church, and the harm it has done.

Over at The Jewish Journal, Brad Greenberg mocks the religious ignorance of the Los Angeles Times.

I sympathize with Kathy Shaidle for having been targeted by Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, but her diatribe against an advocate for the disabled (a “crippled dude”)–and, it seems, against the Civil Rights movement, too–leaves me at a loss for words. Is she deliberately going over the top in her satire in an attempt to provoke further the speech police–or does she really believe this?

Christopher Hitchens responds to Pat Buchanan’s revisionism in the latest Newsweek.

In Canada, feelings about being hurt by words fuel the supralegal Human Rights Commissions. So should it surprise us that an Ontario school reported a family for sexual abuse of their daughter because of a psychic’s warning?

In Memphis, TN, cameras captured a policeman brutally beating Duanna Johnson, identified as a transsexual arrested for prostitution.  The cop was calling Johnson by various slurs, which Johnson chose to ignore. As a result, the cop went over and began punching Johnson. It’s a horrific video–Johnson is seated, and the cop begins throwing wild punches.

No person should be treated this way by a policeman–all persons should be treated with dignity and respect.