It’s sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write “however” or “than me” or “was” or “which,” but can’t tell you why. The land of the free in the grip of The Elements of Style.
The grammar anti-prescriptivists have lately taken a back seat to the climate anti-prescriptivitsts, so its understandable.
Every now and then when I think about you lawyers I remember these words from Lewis Carroll:
“You are old,” said the youth, “and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak –
Pray, how did you manage to do it?”
“In my youth,” said his father, “I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life.”
Why aren’t the Republicans capitalizing on the incredible populist anger about the bailouts? Why aren’t the Democrats? Why does it seem that only a few members in Congress even care. Does a person who seriously asks such questions reveal himself as too naive to even discuss adult conversations?
May folks who deny original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc., qualify as “Christians.” Assume that they may call themselves “Christians” or are otherwise affiliated with Christian Churches whose history traces back before the 18th Century.
If yes or no, why or why not?
This may sound like an extremely strange question, but it’s CENTRAL to the “Christian heritage” debates over America’s Founding.
My thanks to those Volokh Conspirators who work to preserve our second amendment rights. Why? Well, today my 17 year old nephew (who has hemiplegia from a stroke while yet in the womb) managed to drop three Mallard drakes and one hen in three consecutive shots from his autoloader. And it happened in anti-firearms Illinois!
I have been reading more briefs regarding Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
It seems that if precedents like Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio are to have any continuing relevance, it seems to me that the Supreme Court will have to uphold peaceful cooperation and especially coordinated advocacy with designated foreign terrorist organizations as protected under the First Amendment.
I believe “Be perfect or be punished” is a good motto to live by and that life should be nasty, brutish, and short for the majority, if not entirety, of humanity.
Prediction: despite having “home advantage”, Canada does not make the the gold medal game these Olympics. Gold: Russia, Silver: Sweden, Bronze: who cares.
Sometimes I feel like academic discussion is or attempts to be just so overly and bullshittily moderate and reasonable and constrained and faux-reflective and reasonable and conventional such that it fails to substantively advance any truly beneficial thought. I realize I wrote reasonable twice. Being overly reasonable often strikes me as somewhat less than fully honest. Shoot me straight, not “as straight as possible while still being politically correct.” It’s just so tiresome, that is, reading between the lines.
Jon Rowe, simply, “No.” I’m a Christian in the same way that I’m Irish. I do not go to church and was born in the United States. Unless you drink the kool-aid you’re not a kool-aid drinker. One may, however, be exposed to the kool-aid drinking culture and be somewhat influenced by their value system. Nevertheless, this does not make one a kool-aid drinker.
Chris Travers, I’m not too familiar with the Holder v. HLP case, but just remember that the only reason that all the First Amendment exception cases exist is so that there is a path to enable the government to oppress or suppress unfavorable minority speech. I don’t think those types of precedents are going anywhere any time soon. Btw, terrorists are really unpopular right now.
Does anyone have suggestions for books that look at relationships between technological concepts and legal or political concepts? I have in mind things along the lines of Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace or Moglen’s “Anarchism Triumphant”.
Those two are both by legal academics looking at the quasi-law aspects of computer software, but books by technologists and/or books taking the metaphor in the other direction would also be interesting.
Why is it, or how is it, that you can write in to a bill an explicit provision which for no rational basis treats the state of Nebraska and the state of Louisiana differently than the rest of the 50 United States without violating equal protection? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get it…is it usual, common? Is it legal? Has it been litigated? It doesn’t seem legit.
Some time quite soon, every law prof in the country will start grading a large number of exams, many of them lengthy essays that must be mind-numbingly similar. What things provide for the retention of the grader’s sanity in that process?
The latest issue of The Economist has an article on how we politely address one another in different cultures. This was all very interesting to read, as articles in that publication tend to be, and then I came to these paragraphs:
All this is grist to the mill of those who study politeness, formality and other branches of sociolinguistics and sociopragmatics. “Politeness studies” is a growing academic discipline; a summer school at Lancaster University in northern England this summer even developed a sub-branch, “Rudeness studies”. A “Journal of Politeness Research” was founded in 2005. Its most-downloaded article is by Miranda Stewart, a scholar based in Scotland. It is called “Protecting speaker’s face in impolite exchanges: The negotiation of face-wants in workplace interaction”.
Students of politeness explore many aspects of social behaviour: how status relates to language, the use of calculated rudeness in broadcast media interviews and the use of the intimate/formal forms of address (called the T-V divide after the French forms tu and vous). One of the big discoveries in the subject’s early days, says Ms Stewart, was that left-wing people, regardless of culture, tend to prefer intimate forms of address; more conservative speakers like formality. These days, the most contentious issue is the idea that politeness studies has been too Eurocentric. Chinese and other east Asian scholars argue vigorously (but politely) that the discipline is too heavily based on individualistic western concepts and takes too little account of collective norms.
At least to outsiders, the biggest question is what politeness actually is, and how it relates to other vital but slippery concepts such as deference, friendliness and formality. From one point of view, politeness is about being nice: easing social interaction by taking account of other people’s needs. Academics call this the “Grand Strategy of Politeness” (GSP). Geoffrey Leech of Lancaster University describes it thus: “the performance of polite speech acts such as requests, offers, compliments, apologies, thanks, and responses to these.” According to the GSP “a speaker communicates meanings which place (a) a high value on what relates to the other person (typically the addressee), and (b) a low value on what relates to the speaker”.
Am I correct that ANYTHING can be made the subject of an academic discipline? The problem here is not that there is nothing to study and learn. Rather, it is that there is just so much than can be useful to know before the academics start feeding off one another so as to produce manuscripts that would justify their discipline. I have been exposed lately to a bit of the theorizing that law professors who fancy themselves as constitutional scholars have been engaging in, and I notice that some of them tend to focus not so much on real law as on the writings of other professors (who often are responding to to what still other professors have written), causing them to produce material that I suspect would not be of much use to a judge, the lawyers, or the clients in an actual case. So the question is: what’s the point (other than to enjoy a cushy job)?
Why aren’t the Republicans capitalizing on the incredible populist anger about the bailouts? Why aren’t the Democrats? Why does it seem that only a few members in Congress even care. Does a person who seriously asks such questions reveal himself as too naive to even discuss adult conversations?
Perhaps because what really matters in politics is the money you get from interest groups, without which you can’t mount a decent campaign. The voters are becoming largely irrelevant. How else account for Congress being about to enact a health-care bill that the public, and especially the swing voters, opposes by a large margin.
Some time quite soon, every law prof in the country will start grading a large number of exams, many of them lengthy essays that must be mind-numbingly similar. What things provide for the retention of the grader’s sanity in that process?
In the process of grading, I’m trying to come up with my “best most favorite-ist” songs of 2009. If you like alt-rock, feel free to give me suggestions.
And if you have a kid between 4-10, check out “Here Comes Science” by They Might Be Giants. It’s frickin’ brilliant: catchy, fun, and yes, educational.
Jon Rowe: May folks who deny original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc., qualify as “Christians.”
Regeneration? like when a crab loses an arm and regrows it?
John 1:18 – “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him.”
If a prosecutor convicts a person at trial should he/she seek a higher sentence than if a person pleads guilty without a trial? Why yes and why no?
Personally…Yes and No
If the plea is being offered due to the uncertainties with trial then the defendant should expect that the the post conviction “rate” is different than the pre-conviction “rate.” (Simply, in a plea the defendant is selling the chance of acquittal for the certainty of a plea.)
However, a defendant should not be “punished” for going to trial. If it’s just a matter of well you made me work…that’s not so right.
1. PZ Myers castigates Randi for climate change skepticism but says nothing when Gore quotes from the Bible in his presentations.
2. Unsubscribed from The Huffington Post feed in my Google Reader. News mixed with gossip and medical quackery. Slate for Oprah fans.
3. The moment the Tea Party nominates a candidate, it will become oblivious. Think Ross Perot. Right now, it is the Rorschach party for the discontented.
And really, is it actually necessary to state that so obnoxiously? Were people really going ahead and incorporating the feed into other sites without asking? Has general understanding of copyright deteriorated that far? (And, um, what’s with that “digital fingerprint” not actually being there?)
What is Volokh’s take on the Federalism Amendment?
At the risk of sounding alarmist, a re-commitment to Federalism seems the only means of preventing gradual collapse into authoritarianism.
You have to attack the systemic drivers, not just swap out the names in the offices.
Gov98: Why is it, or how is it, that you can write in to a bill an explicit provision which for no rational basis treats the state of Nebraska and the state of Louisiana differently than the rest of the 50 United States without violating equal protection? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get it…is it usual, common? Is it legal? Has it been litigated? It doesn’t seem legit.
Where’s the irrationality, they needed Mary Landrieu’s vote.
It occurred to me recently that I have come to assume that I undertand in some respect the personality and character of the conspirators, based on their posts and their responses to comments. I have no idea whether my impressions would be accurate in “real life,” and I wonder whether they are.
Jon Rowe: May folks who deny original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc., qualify as “Christians.”Assume that they may call themselves “Christians” or are otherwise affiliated with Christian Churches whose history traces back before the 18th Century.If yes or no, why or why not?This may sound like an extremely strange question, but it’s CENTRAL to the “Christian heritage” debates over America’s Founding.
Qualify for what purpose? I’m not sure how I could convincingly contest someone’s self-identification (absent ignorance or clear bad faith on their part). Faith traditions don’t really have clear boundaries.
Orin, there’s a big controversy about whether the Reid-Nelson deal means that federal funds will start paying for abortion. Nelson says “no” but GOP Senators say “yes.” What do the Conspirators say? I say yes:
Valentino Rossi: My thanks to those Volokh Conspirators who work to preserve our second amendment rights. Why? Well, today my 17 year old nephew (who has hemiplegia from a stroke while yet in the womb) managed to drop three Mallard drakes and one hen in three consecutive shots from his autoloader. And it happened in anti-firearms Illinois!
I didn’t realize that but for the efforts of the NRA and stalwarts like the Volokh Conspirators Americans might not be permitted to hunt ducks. Is the autoloader your nephew used the sort of weapon that would be banned by any legislation that has been championed by gun control advocates?
How can congress assume a family of four making $85K a year can suddenly afford to spend 16% of GROSS income on health insurance? Currently federal, payroll and state taxes take about 25% of income and I’m sure that will go up soon. Figure another 25% for mortgage, property tax and homeowners insurance; 11% for vehicles, car insurance, gas, oil and auto repairs; 10% for groceries; 8% utilities, and you are at 95% of income not including retirement and college savings, home repairs, clothing, personal care luxuries like toilet paper, soap and shampoo.
Compare the rate listed on the CBO report to my families’ current private insurance rate of around 7K per year for 5 people, including one with the preexisting condition of asthma. We can afford that, we will not be able to afford over 14K.
Single people making $50K will be forced to pay $7,100.
theobromophile: You must not be in the D.C. area. It’s an hour after your post, and I have more than 20 inches of snow outside my door. The snow seems to have stopped, but D.C. won’t be back to functioning until mid-day Tuesday — at the earliest. More likely, it will be Wednesday and not at full function.
For retailers in the D.C. area, this will be one heck of a sock in the gut. For politicians on the Hill, heaven only knows.
smitty: What is Volokh’s take on the Federalism Amendment?
At the risk of sounding alarmist, a re-commitment to Federalism seems the only means of preventing gradual collapse into authoritarianism.
You have to attack the systemic drivers, not just swap out the names in the offices.
If we are being AT ALL realistic, Article 3 needs to have a grandfather clause for existing legislation (see grandfather clause in Article 7)
More of a request for EV or other conspirators than a comment, but anyway … various commentators (including Robert Pozen in “Too Big To Save”) have argued that Congress’ financial reforms should include regulations that govern the content of reports issued by credit rating agencies. The commentators I’ve seen (including Pozen) say that because the agencies sell those reports, it’s commercial speech and there should not be a problem in regulating it. Under current 1A law this is legally wrong, but I was wondering what the proper legal arguments for and against treating credit rating agency reports as commercial speech are, and even if such reports were treated as commercial speech what regulations could be passed since such reports are mostly matters of opinion rather than fact?
Chocolate Fudge, modified by Anatid
18 oz. (3 c.) semi-sweet chocolate chips
1 can (14 oz.) sweetened condensed (not evaporated!) Eagle Brand milk
1/3 c. powdered sugar
2 tsp. vanilla extract
1 tsp. coarse sea salt (if using regular salt, only use 2/3 tsp.)
Peppermint Topping (optional)
4 oz. (2/3 c.) white chips
2 tbsp. salted butter
1 large peppermint candy cane (1/3-1/2 cup when crushed)
milk as necessary
1. Melt chocolate chips in a double-boiler or in the microwave, stirring frequently. If using the microwave, do not pulse for more than 30sec without stirring. Continue heating and stirring until all clumps are melted and smooth.
2. Mix in sweetened condensed milk. You may need to briefly heat it again, but be careful – it burns easily.
3. Mix in the vanilla and the sea salt.
4. Fold in the powdered sugar. The fudge will grow stiff. If you don’t completely mix it in, then the small dots of remaining powdered sugar will look like a snowflake pattern when you cut the fudge.
5. Pour fudge into a greased 8″x8″ pan, or into a 9″x13″ pan for thinner fudge. Spread the surface smooth with a greased spatula. Cover and set aside.
6. Put the candy cane into a ziplock bag and crush it. The peppermint bits don’t have to be uniform in size – variation is interesting. The largest should be no bigger than 1/2 cm.
7. In a clean bowl, melt the white chips with the butter. Stir until smooth. If texture is too stiff to pour smoothly (this should be viscous but runnier than the stiffer fudge mixture) add milk in small amounts to thin it.
8. Pour white topping onto the fudge as evenly as possible. Immediately, dust it with the peppermint bits, covering the surface evenly. Gently press the bits into the topping as it cools.
9. Allow to chill overnight.
10. Turn out onto cutting board, slice, and serve. Fudge should be kept refrigerated but should be allowed to warm for 10-20 minutes before serving.
Blackberry help request. I can pull up VC on my Blackberry just fine, what I cannot get are any comments. I get a Comments link that I can click on but once I do that there are no comments anywhere and all I have is a chance to leave a comment. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
neurodoc: Where’s the irrationality, they needed Mary Landrieu’s vote.
Quote
Is that really a rational basis for equal protection? I mean once you have to introduce the fact that in order to pass the bill the Senators had to be practically bought off with discrete benefits to their state why or how is it that that is not a problem? (e.g. Well, that crime only applies to 4 counties in our state.)
I mean once you have to introduce the fact that in order to pass the bill the Senators had to be practically bought off with discrete benefits to their state why or how is it that that is not a problem?
It’s a problem, but I suspect the first instance of this was in very first session of Congress, so I don’t see why anyone should be shocked.
“Regeneration” is a tenet of certain reformed/evangelical Christians. It’s pretty much a sophisticated word for being “born again.” Not all orthodox Christians (as far as I know) hold to this doctrine. Why is this important? See my next comment. It’s about line drawing for who is and who is not a “Christian.”
Will the snowstorm on the east coast have the effect of trapping congress in session, or will it keep congresscritters in their DC area residences and away from the session?
I don’t understand why the Republicans haven’t sworn to fiscal responsibility; no spending, no earmarks, no pork, to differentiate them from the Bush Republicans and the Nancy/Harry/Hussein spenders.
By election, the dems will be buying votes with stimulus money and paying ACORNers and local organizers to steal. The tea partiers will be drawing such clear distinctions but anywhere a tea party candidate has strength it will be only at the expense of the Republican.
Qualify for what purpose? I’m not sure how I could convincingly contest someone’s self-identification (absent ignorance or clear bad faith on their part). Faith traditions don’t really have clear boundaries.
Okay here’s the deal: We have a minimalistic definition of what it means to be a “Christian.” And that’s anyone who self identifies as such. During America’s Founding it was around 98%. Today, in America, it’s between 70-80%. This includes not just Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and the Pope (I know, he’s not American), but also Phil Donahue, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, John Shelby Spong, Gene Robinson, every single practicing Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness, and also, what might surprise some folks, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. When you see world demographics on how many “Christians” there are (over two billion) vs. “Muslims” (over 1 billion), this minimalistic standard is used.
America, when it was founded (1776-91), certainly qualifies as a “Christian Nation” under this demographic or minimalistic standard where even Jefferson — a man who called himself a Christian but denied (his words) “[t]he immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.” — qualifies as a “Christian.”
To the extent that the secular left believes the FFs were a bunch of “non-Christian Deists” — men who didn’t identity as “Christians” and wanted nothing to do with the Bible/Jesus — men like Thomas Paine and Elihu Palmer — they are flat out wrong. But if they can get over that error, what is there really for them to argue over if the definition “Christian” includes homosexuals, pro-abortionists, Mormons, folks who deny every single theological tenet the “orthodox” hold dear — but just believe in God and call themselves “Christians”?
That’s where the religious right/Christian Heritage types are wrong and beg to differ. When they argue for “reclaiming America” to its Christian roots, that virtually all of the FFs were “Bible believing Christians,” they are NOT dealing with such a broad understanding of Christianity. To the contrary, they’d never fight a political-historical culture war battle for THAT kind of inclusive Christianity.
So with that, what I’ve discovered after years of meticulous research that the “civil religion” of America’s Founding, something that oft-presented itself as “Christianity” by men like Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin who likelier understood themselves to be “Christian” not “Deists” was devoid of doctrines like “original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc.,” doctrines in which they personally did not believe, and doctrines which were purposefully excluded from America’s Founding political theological landscape (at least at the Federal level; we are talking about the Federal Founding from 1776-1791). So if THAT theological system qualifies as “Christianity” we can say America had a “Christian” Founding in a political theological sense, that America’s civil religion is “Christian.” However, if that system is NOT Christianity then America didn’t have a Christian Founding and its civil religion is not “Christian.”
The irony that I’ve discovered is the ones who should be recoiling the most from America’s Founding civil religion are the evangelicals and “orthodox”; but they are the one’s who try to claim the Founding as “Christian.” Many orthodox and evangelicals, though, do understand America didn’t have a “Christian” Founding, as they understand the creed.
And the ones who could embrace the “Christianity” of the American Founding those who practice a more “lax” kind of Christianity.
Steve2: I believe “Be perfect or be punished” is a good motto to live by and that life should be nasty, brutish, and short for the majority, if not entirety, of humanity.
I agree with the second part but not the first. More resistance in life would mean folks with greater strength of character.
In support of this, how many folks have you watched make a transition into parenthood? Parenthood is not something one is “ready” to take on. It is a challenge folks must rise to. If there are more such challenges in life, we would be better off….
Jon Rowe: May folks who deny original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc., qualify as “Christians.”Assume that they may call themselves “Christians” or are otherwise affiliated with Christian Churches whose history traces back before the 18th Century.If yes or no, why or why not?This may sound like an extremely strange question, but it’s CENTRAL to the “Christian heritage” debates over America’s Founding.
Given that Quakerism was instrumental in this nation’s early history and heritage, is arguably “Christian” (and labels itself such), denies original sin at least implicitly, is silent on issues of the trinity, has very unorthodox approaches to questions of incarnation, dismisses infallibility, is silent on atonement, and leaves questions on regeneration and eternal damnation to God (if you were God would you prefer followers who do the right thing because it is right or because they are afraid of eternal damnation?), I would argue that the answer is clearly yes.
But then Quakers were considered so subversive that advocating for tolerance of them was a crime in Boston that could get you exiled on pain of death before the revolution. The laws against Quakers in many such cities made the later Smith Act look pretty tame.
Yep. We dropped our insurance when the rate was adjusted up 50% at the end of one year (for a family of four, from $800/month to $1200 per month).
For anyone who is self employed, insurance tends to come and go. One real fear I have is that if my right to drop insurance goes away, then the costs will go up even more.
The current approach to health care reform is entirely broken. Yes, we need heath care reform. Neither this, nor general Republican proposals, however will make things better. Both will likely make things worse. The proposals Obama made during his campaign were good ones and remarkably minor reforms, though. What we have gotten is a classic bait and switch.
Jon Rowe: Architect,“Regeneration” is a tenet of certain reformed/evangelical Christians.It’s pretty much a sophisticated word for being “born again.”Not all orthodox Christians (as far as I know) hold to this doctrine.Why is this important?See my next comment.It’s about line drawing for who is and who is not a “Christian.”
Funny. My first exposure to the term was from a (very) Catholic poet by the name of Dante Gabriel Rossetti from the 19th century. In one of the sonnets discussing his reactions to his wife’s untimely death, he wrote The Heart of the Night.
He seemed to see it as a state of regeneration following death.
That’s a great question. On a personal note, I am hopefully agnostic, with deistic, theistic, and universalistic tendencies. I don’t call myself a “Christian” and one thing that’s standing in the way of me exploring Christianity further as a personal creed is, I want to be an outsider — a neutral referee — in this political-historical-theological-sociological study that I’ve undertaking. In short, I don’t personally judge who is or is not a “Christian,” but rather categorize according to outside standards. Though, I think what I personally believe could pass for “Christianity” in many liberal mainline churches.
What that, you’ve hit upon the perfect outlier — the Quakers. My friend Dr. Gregg Frazer — a professor at The Master’s College (PhD in political science from Claremont Graduate University on this very matter) — is himself a fundamentalist Christian, one who probably doesn’t believe Roman Catholics qualify as “Christians.” (Or any Protestant denomination that doesn’t accept the doctrine of regeneration/being “born again”).
Yet, when he constructed his ten point test for what it meant to be a “Christian” in late 18th Century America, he formed a lowest common denominator among the dominant churches of that era and included some groups that wouldn’t pass his personal test (or what he says “the Bible’s test”) for “Christianity.” That included Roman Catholics, some Anglicans (though I think there was a Calvinistic current in some Anglican churches who would accept doctrines like being born-again). You can view his 10 point test here.
Yet, he leaves out the Quakers. And indeed if there is a form of “Christianity” of that era that is closest to what Jefferson, J. Adams, Washington, Franklin personally believed, it was Quakerism. And indeed, the Founders tended to love the Quakers, for that very reason (that they were non-creedal, and didn’t care too much about doctrines like original sin, the Trinity). Of course, they had a big problem with the Quakers’ refusal to take up arms against GB; but I think the Quakers got a big pass from them precisely because the FFs loved their non-creedal, non-caring too much about the Trinity form of “Christianity.”
And on a personal note, the Quakers are one of the “Christian” sects I’ve thought about joining.
MartyA: I don’t understand why the Republicans haven’t sworn to fiscal responsibility; no spending, no earmarks, no pork, to differentiate them from the Bush Republicans and the Nancy/Harry/Hussein spenders.
By election, the dems will be buying votes with stimulus money and paying ACORNers and local organizers to steal. The tea partiers will be drawing such clear distinctions but anywhere a tea party candidate has strength it will be only at the expense of the Republican.
The Republican leaders in the Iowa legislature have said that they are going to be emphasizing their social agenda, primarily an amendment on SSM. Despite this time of budget and economic crisis. I think we can write off the Republican Party of Iowa for this cycle unless something radically changes.
ChrisIowa: Will the snowstorm on the east coast have the effect of trapping congress in session, or will it keep congresscritters in their DC area residences and away from the session?
We had PLENTY of warning about how much snow we’d get and when we’d get it. The most politically shrewd politicians should have holed up in their offices and not gone home. However, what has actually happened, I don’t know.
Actually a surprising number of Quakers participated somewhat nontraditionally in the Revolutionary War, and there were even a few who directly took up arms. One prominent Quaker in the Colonial army was General Greene.
My nephew’s autoloader is one of the “automatic” weapons that might have been outlawed by those groups opposed to firearms had not 2nd amendment supporters worked to show that an autoloader is not an automatic weapon. Typically people continue to refer to an autoloader as an automatic, and the public at large did not know that they were not the same thing. As far as I know, legislation to make hunting accessible for the handicapped has only come about over the last thirty to thirty-five years. In addition, especially in Illinois where the State Police determine just who merits possession of an F.O.I.D. card and therefore who can even touch let alone own a firearm, a handicapped person may be denied an F.O.I.D. card merely because of the course of medical treatment for his or her handicap (it’s all determined by the Illinois State Police – not your physician). Finally, understand that Illinois is not a firearms friendly state: It doesn’t allow concealed carry, hunters can be (and have been) repeatedly written citations on the whim of a game warden, and assistant states attorneys will prosecute those hunters even when no law has been violated. As for those of you who don’t think hitting multiple live moving targets one, two, three, and in this case four (with three shots) is difficult, please try doing it – specifically in Illinois (I’d rate it to be at least as difficult as shooting a hole in one at a PGA course) especially as waterfowl are migratory and ducks have been hunted since the early fall and are quite wary the last week of the season. Better yet, research hemiplegia (my nephew’s handicap) and perhaps you’ll better understand why I am so proud of him and this shooting accomplishment.
I don’t understand Frazer’s distinctions. Is it too snarky to say he defines who is a Christian to suit his purpose, without much regard for consistency.
That is, if you want to talk about how the US was founded by Christians you take a very broad view. But if you want to talk about who the real Christians are today suddenly you narrow the definition considerably. Maybe he’s not making both of those claims, but if he is then something’s wrong.
I disagree. For his personal reasons — what he’s dedicated his life to as an evangelical — Frazer takes a fairly narrow view of what it means to be a Christian (i.e., born again, evangelical, the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God).
For late 18th Century American purposes, his view of “Christianity” is broader and it is defined by a lowest common denominator among the creeds of every single late 18th Century Christian Church, that is except the Quakers. There is nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about that standard.
We are not changing the standards from the 18th Century to today. We are using the same standards. There are three: 1) The strictest — someone’s personal narrow gate view (i.e., only practicing Roman Catholics are Christians, only Sola-Scriptura fundamentalists are Christians, etc.). 2) the late 18th Century American Consensus view that includes, among others, evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, (a 10 point test that includes i. Trinity; ii. Providential God; iii. Deity of Christ; iv. Original Sin; v. Virgin Birth; vi. Atonement; vii. Resurrection; viii. Eternal Punishment for Sin; ix. Justification by Faith; and x. Infallibility of the biblical canon.) As noted the Quakers throw a monkey wrench into the formula. And 3) the formal/nominal Christian view where anyone who calls or thinks of himself a “Christian” is a “Christian” regardless of what his beliefs on theological tenets.
America’s key Founders [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Hamilton before his deathbed conversion to orthodox Christianity] provably pass test 3 for “Christian” only. There isn’t a whole lot of evidence btw, of GW, JM calling themselves “Christians” either. But if you asked them I think they probably would consider themselves “Christians” in a similar way that Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin considered themselves “Christians.”
Yes. I understand that he is describing various standards and applying a very loose one to the founders and a very tight one today. That’s fine as far as it goes.
The issue of consistency arises when he starts mixing those different standards. (And I don’t know whether he himself does that, though there are certainly those who do). To put it in simple terms, it is inconsistent to claim that because most of the founders were Category 3 Christians, Category 1&2 Christianity ought somehow be regarded with special respect, or be privileged over other religions, etc. today.
Now, I happen to believe that the founders’ religious beliefs really should be irrelevant anyway, but even if someone disagrees, it makes no sense to cross the categories.
I understand your concerns — and I personally believe everyone should be treated equally with regards to her religion — I think, further, the FFs believed something similar, though they did tend to privilege Providentialism or monotheism, in their rhetorical addresses (but didn’t wish to deprive atheists or polytheists of any tangible rights) — but I still disagree there is any double standard thing going on here.
With all of this paying homage to the Founders, if they were category 3 type Christians, why on earth does it follow that categories 1 or 2 (which they flunk!) would get any kind of respect or privilege? Arguably the opposite conclusion follows. This is one reason why the “Christian America” types argue against the claim the FFs are all Deists. They believe that pays secularism, deism, perhaps atheism and agnosticism (which some argue are the logical consequence of deism) too much privilege.
The folks in categories 1&2 (that is “orthodox Trinitarian” Christians) tend to believe those in category 3 are NOT Christians, but something else. According to the premises of 1&2, if we accept the key FFs really did fit into category 3, that 3 was the political-theological driver of the American Founding, America was NOT founded to be a “Christian Nation.”
This is what Dr. Frazer argues in his 2003 thesis, which, by all accounts should have been published into a book by one of the big academic publishers.
When it comes to what America, as an “ideal” was founded to be, he argues America was founded to be “religious” not “Christian” and that the key FFs were “religious” but not “Christian.” But he also argues against the secular-left Deist narrative. He his view is too far to the right for the secular left idealists but too far to the left for religious right idealists. Though, when it comes to his preferred public policy, he’s pretty much a meat and potatoes religious right conservative.
Though I note his view of the Bible leads him to a non-Dominionist kind of religious right fundamentalism. He’s more concerned about saving souls than politics.
Why couldn’t Bingham write his statements so they could never be misquoted and his intention always clear? I’m snowed in and the nearest liquor store is outside of walking distance so I’m unable to participate in the Bingham Drinking Game.
Given the various economic issues of the last couple years, when I think of an appropriate Lewis Carrol stanza, I think of:
He thought he saw a banker’s clerk
Descending from a bus.
He looked again and found it was
A hippopotamus.
“If this should stay to dine,” he said,
“There won’t be much for us!”
Or perhaps regarding the DoJ filing on the ACORN case:
He thought he saw an Argument
That proved he was the Pope:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bar of Mottled Soap.
‘A fact so dread,’ he faintly said,
‘Extinguishes all hope!’
Chris, I love that one! We make up new stanzas for it all the time.
He thought he saw a parking spot
A-glinting in the sun.
He looked again and saw it was
A person with a gun.
“It only goes to show,” he said,
“I’m not the only one!”
My husband and I made that one up in the parking lot of Eastgate Shopping Center in Memphis.
I was raised in the Unitarian Universalist Church. Our dogma, such as it was: rejected original sin, asserted universal salvation (as only appropriate for a rational and loving god); rejected the trinity, and left Jesus’ divinity open for discussion.
We thought of ourselves as ‘Christians’ because we accepted Christ as the greatest moral teacher, divinely inspired.
Leo Marvin, Laura, Orin, and others who might be interested:
An update on my hypothetical situation with a student diagnosed with several problems including OCD. Imagine that said student is threatening to sue me, another professor,and possibly the institution for receiving failing grades. You might imagine that this hypothetical student did not turn in work in all classes and claims it was the result of a computer problem.
Your syllabus has a policy, right, about work being turned in and how to contact the teacher in case of problems?
My junior year in college we had in our dorm hall an incoming transfer student who’d gone to jr. college the first 2 years and was a bit coddled. She dropped some courses she needed to graduate, and so when she applied for her degree she was denied. This student was going to sue her advisor for letting her drop those courses. We dissuaded her by reminding her that her course requirements were spelled out in the catalogs we all got, and that getting a four-year degree ought to mean you were in some sense a grownup; and that she would only make a fool of herself if she tried that. Ultimately she just went to summer school and finished up.
If any lawyers are still reading this, I have an earnest question.
What does
X expressly covenants and agrees that X will not at any time, directly or indirectly, reveal, divulge, disclose, disseminate, fax, transmit, including by electronic transmission, duplicate, publish or communicate Y to Z
I think it might be most useful to determine what is “Christian” by appealing to something historical and doctrinal rather than simply to personal opinion.
We’ve got the, probably earlier and more inclusive, “Apostle’s Creed” and the more precise Nicene Creed (with later modifications, none of which are contradictory), but they aren’t contradictory.
Given that the Nicene Creed is about as early as it gets, early 4th century, and was expressly designed as a profession of faith, to clearly define which beliefs on points of doctrine met the standard of “Christianity” (vice heresy and error) and is accepted by Orthodox, Catholics and the majority of, historic and new, Protestant denominations, I think a simple place to draw the line would be to ask; can an individual claimant to Christianity accede to the Nicene Creed in total?
If not, they may be “Christian-ish” but they aren’t Christian per se.
Valentino Rossi: Better yet, research hemiplegia (my nephew’s handicap) and perhaps you’ll better understand…
I can assure you that as a neurologist, even one who hasn’t practiced as a clinician in many years, I don’t need to research hemiplegia, which is simply paralysis of the upper and lower limbs on one side or the other, and may come about in any number of different ways. The differential diagnosis of infantile hemiplegia is a basic question in pediatrics, and the pediatric neurology case I was presented when I took my oral boards exam was an infant girl with a very obvious right hemiplegia, which had been acquired in utero.
I’m glad that hunting is something your nephew can do well and enjoy, and I appreciate the tutelage with respect to hunting rifles. I do favor some form of gun control, but see that it can be difficult to agree on exactly which guns should be subject to what controls.
Chris, if your student does sue, the most important decision you’ll face is hiring the lawyer best suited to get you the result you deserve against this plaintiff. I recommend Thomas J. Capano, Esq.
Gov98: If a prosecutor convicts a person at trial should he/she seek a higher sentence than if a person pleads guilty without a trial?
Maybe prosecutors should remember that they serve the citizens, not the government or their own interests. They should charge suspects CORRECTLY, rather than engage in the bait-and-switch bullying that has become the status quo.
See Silvergate; CATO.
Prosecutors who cannot read the statutes they enforce should be dumped out of office and replaced – preferably with laypeople, not lawyers.
Leo Marvin: Chris, if your student does sue, the most important decision you’ll face is hiring the lawyer best suited to get you the result you deserve against this plaintiff. I recommend Thomas J. Capano, Esq.
Thanks, Hon (and happy holidays!).
It seems the hypothetical student is, now, being charged with academic honesty violations (we used to call it ‘cheating’) in 2 other courses. I think I have moved down on the Enemies List.
Still. I’m such a schmuck that I find it all very sad.
DiversityHire says:
I was expecting to see this around here:
The grammar anti-prescriptivists have lately taken a back seat to the climate anti-prescriptivitsts, so its understandable.
December 19, 2009, 6:17 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
I have found a complete explanation of the political forces that have caused me to be a “moderate”:
December 19, 2009, 6:38 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL7xjhrXX80
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Every now and then when I think about you lawyers I remember these words from Lewis Carroll:
“You are old,” said the youth, “and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak –
Pray, how did you manage to do it?”
“In my youth,” said his father, “I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life.”
Poem here.
December 19, 2009, 6:41 pmPeteP says:
Jim Lindgren should be required to open his blogs to comments.
December 19, 2009, 6:43 pmMike says:
Why aren’t the Republicans capitalizing on the incredible populist anger about the bailouts? Why aren’t the Democrats? Why does it seem that only a few members in Congress even care. Does a person who seriously asks such questions reveal himself as too naive to even discuss adult conversations?
December 19, 2009, 6:51 pmJon Rowe says:
May folks who deny original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc., qualify as “Christians.” Assume that they may call themselves “Christians” or are otherwise affiliated with Christian Churches whose history traces back before the 18th Century.
If yes or no, why or why not?
This may sound like an extremely strange question, but it’s CENTRAL to the “Christian heritage” debates over America’s Founding.
December 19, 2009, 7:00 pmValentino Rossi says:
My thanks to those Volokh Conspirators who work to preserve our second amendment rights. Why? Well, today my 17 year old nephew (who has hemiplegia from a stroke while yet in the womb) managed to drop three Mallard drakes and one hen in three consecutive shots from his autoloader. And it happened in anti-firearms Illinois!
December 19, 2009, 7:01 pmChris Travers says:
I have been reading more briefs regarding Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
It seems that if precedents like Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio are to have any continuing relevance, it seems to me that the Supreme Court will have to uphold peaceful cooperation and especially coordinated advocacy with designated foreign terrorist organizations as protected under the First Amendment.
What do others think?
December 19, 2009, 7:26 pmSteve2 says:
I believe “Be perfect or be punished” is a good motto to live by and that life should be nasty, brutish, and short for the majority, if not entirety, of humanity.
December 19, 2009, 7:51 pmMarshall Plan says:
Prediction: despite having “home advantage”, Canada does not make the the gold medal game these Olympics. Gold: Russia, Silver: Sweden, Bronze: who cares.
December 19, 2009, 7:57 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Sometimes I feel like academic discussion is or attempts to be just so overly and bullshittily moderate and reasonable and constrained and faux-reflective and reasonable and conventional such that it fails to substantively advance any truly beneficial thought. I realize I wrote reasonable twice. Being overly reasonable often strikes me as somewhat less than fully honest. Shoot me straight, not “as straight as possible while still being politically correct.” It’s just so tiresome, that is, reading between the lines.
Jon Rowe, simply, “No.” I’m a Christian in the same way that I’m Irish. I do not go to church and was born in the United States. Unless you drink the kool-aid you’re not a kool-aid drinker. One may, however, be exposed to the kool-aid drinking culture and be somewhat influenced by their value system. Nevertheless, this does not make one a kool-aid drinker.
Chris Travers, I’m not too familiar with the Holder v. HLP case, but just remember that the only reason that all the First Amendment exception cases exist is so that there is a path to enable the government to oppress or suppress unfavorable minority speech. I don’t think those types of precedents are going anywhere any time soon. Btw, terrorists are really unpopular right now.
December 19, 2009, 8:19 pmMark N. says:
Does anyone have suggestions for books that look at relationships between technological concepts and legal or political concepts? I have in mind things along the lines of Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace or Moglen’s “Anarchism Triumphant”.
Those two are both by legal academics looking at the quasi-law aspects of computer software, but books by technologists and/or books taking the metaphor in the other direction would also be interesting.
December 19, 2009, 8:25 pmGov98 says:
Why is it, or how is it, that you can write in to a bill an explicit provision which for no rational basis treats the state of Nebraska and the state of Louisiana differently than the rest of the 50 United States without violating equal protection? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get it…is it usual, common? Is it legal? Has it been litigated? It doesn’t seem legit.
December 19, 2009, 8:35 pmjimM47 says:
Some time quite soon, every law prof in the country will start grading a large number of exams, many of them lengthy essays that must be mind-numbingly similar. What things provide for the retention of the grader’s sanity in that process?
December 19, 2009, 8:39 pmtroll_dc2 says:
The latest issue of The Economist has an article on how we politely address one another in different cultures. This was all very interesting to read, as articles in that publication tend to be, and then I came to these paragraphs:
Am I correct that ANYTHING can be made the subject of an academic discipline? The problem here is not that there is nothing to study and learn. Rather, it is that there is just so much than can be useful to know before the academics start feeding off one another so as to produce manuscripts that would justify their discipline. I have been exposed lately to a bit of the theorizing that law professors who fancy themselves as constitutional scholars have been engaging in, and I notice that some of them tend to focus not so much on real law as on the writings of other professors (who often are responding to to what still other professors have written), causing them to produce material that I suspect would not be of much use to a judge, the lawyers, or the clients in an actual case. So the question is: what’s the point (other than to enjoy a cushy job)?
December 19, 2009, 9:11 pmLEE says:
WOW, What an accomplishment!! Four dead ducks!!! WOW!!!
December 19, 2009, 9:13 pmathEIst says:
The killing of ducks being necessary to a free state, the right of the people…
December 19, 2009, 9:21 pmAlan Gunn says:
Mike asked,
Perhaps because what really matters in politics is the money you get from interest groups, without which you can’t mount a decent campaign. The voters are becoming largely irrelevant. How else account for Congress being about to enact a health-care bill that the public, and especially the swing voters, opposes by a large margin.
December 19, 2009, 9:27 pmLeo Marvin says:
A nice (coincidentally timed at) Christmas story.
December 19, 2009, 9:36 pmbyomtov says:
jimM47,
Some time quite soon, every law prof in the country will start grading a large number of exams, many of them lengthy essays that must be mind-numbingly similar. What things provide for the retention of the grader’s sanity in that process?
Just guessing, I’d say it’s the paychecks.
December 19, 2009, 9:37 pmJoseph Slater says:
In the process of grading, I’m trying to come up with my “best most favorite-ist” songs of 2009. If you like alt-rock, feel free to give me suggestions.
And if you have a kid between 4-10, check out “Here Comes Science” by They Might Be Giants. It’s frickin’ brilliant: catchy, fun, and yes, educational.
December 19, 2009, 9:45 pmArchitect says:
Regeneration? like when a crab loses an arm and regrows it?
John 1:18 – “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him.”
December 19, 2009, 10:07 pmMichael Alexander says:
If a prosecutor convicts a person at trial should he/she seek a higher sentence than if a person pleads guilty without a trial? Why yes and why no?
December 19, 2009, 10:24 pmGov98 says:
If a prosecutor convicts a person at trial should he/she seek a higher sentence than if a person pleads guilty without a trial? Why yes and why no?
Personally…Yes and No
If the plea is being offered due to the uncertainties with trial then the defendant should expect that the the post conviction “rate” is different than the pre-conviction “rate.” (Simply, in a plea the defendant is selling the chance of acquittal for the certainty of a plea.)
However, a defendant should not be “punished” for going to trial. If it’s just a matter of well you made me work…that’s not so right.
December 19, 2009, 10:34 pmCharlie Broadway says:
1. PZ Myers castigates Randi for climate change skepticism but says nothing when Gore quotes from the Bible in his presentations.
2. Unsubscribed from The Huffington Post feed in my Google Reader. News mixed with gossip and medical quackery. Slate for Oprah fans.
3. The moment the Tea Party nominates a candidate, it will become oblivious. Think Ross Perot. Right now, it is the Rorschach party for the discontented.
C.
December 19, 2009, 10:35 pmJeff Walden says:
What was the motivation for adding this obnoxious disclaimer to every entry in the Volokh feed?
And really, is it actually necessary to state that so obnoxiously? Were people really going ahead and incorporating the feed into other sites without asking? Has general understanding of copyright deteriorated that far? (And, um, what’s with that “digital fingerprint” not actually being there?)
December 19, 2009, 10:40 pmOrin Kerr says:
Jeff Walden,
I was unaware of that disclaimer. If I had to guess, I would guess that the rest of my co-bloggers are unaware of it, too.
December 19, 2009, 10:52 pmsmitty says:
What is Volokh’s take on the Federalism Amendment?
December 19, 2009, 11:40 pmAt the risk of sounding alarmist, a re-commitment to Federalism seems the only means of preventing gradual collapse into authoritarianism.
You have to attack the systemic drivers, not just swap out the names in the offices.
neurodoc says:
Where’s the irrationality, they needed Mary Landrieu’s vote.
December 19, 2009, 11:41 pmDJR says:
It occurred to me recently that I have come to assume that I undertand in some respect the personality and character of the conspirators, based on their posts and their responses to comments. I have no idea whether my impressions would be accurate in “real life,” and I wonder whether they are.
December 19, 2009, 11:47 pmLeo Marvin says:
Orin,
Jeff Walden’s comment reminded me: Where’s the comment policy? Was it intentionally deleted in the new format, or am I just not seeing it?
December 19, 2009, 11:50 pmBrett says:
Qualify for what purpose? I’m not sure how I could convincingly contest someone’s self-identification (absent ignorance or clear bad faith on their part). Faith traditions don’t really have clear boundaries.
December 20, 2009, 12:05 amneurodoc says:
Thanks. I’d heard of it, but never viewed it before. What a hoot! I wonder if he hires out to do his thing for others with grievances.
December 20, 2009, 12:13 amAndrew says:
Orin, there’s a big controversy about whether the Reid-Nelson deal means that federal funds will start paying for abortion. Nelson says “no” but GOP Senators say “yes.” What do the Conspirators say? I say yes:
http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman/2009/12/19/the-sneaky-abortion-deception-in-senator-reids-managers-amendment-2/
December 20, 2009, 12:13 amneurodoc says:
I didn’t realize that but for the efforts of the NRA and stalwarts like the Volokh Conspirators Americans might not be permitted to hunt ducks. Is the autoloader your nephew used the sort of weapon that would be banned by any legislation that has been championed by gun control advocates?
December 20, 2009, 12:18 amGmama says:
Anyone who purchases health insurance privately is in for a nasty surprise.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf
Scroll to the last page for premiums.
How can congress assume a family of four making $85K a year can suddenly afford to spend 16% of GROSS income on health insurance? Currently federal, payroll and state taxes take about 25% of income and I’m sure that will go up soon. Figure another 25% for mortgage, property tax and homeowners insurance; 11% for vehicles, car insurance, gas, oil and auto repairs; 10% for groceries; 8% utilities, and you are at 95% of income not including retirement and college savings, home repairs, clothing, personal care luxuries like toilet paper, soap and shampoo.
Compare the rate listed on the CBO report to my families’ current private insurance rate of around 7K per year for 5 people, including one with the preexisting condition of asthma. We can afford that, we will not be able to afford over 14K.
Single people making $50K will be forced to pay $7,100.
This is not reasonable.
December 20, 2009, 12:43 amtheobromophile says:
Valentino: congrats to your nephew. :)
Try Laboratory of Justice, although it may not be quite what you are looking for.
December 20, 2009, 12:54 amtheobromophile says:
In theory, the snow was supposed to start around mid-day today. It’s 1 am and I still haven’t seen a flake.
December 20, 2009, 1:01 amRoger the Shrubber says:
You mean other than the laws in Chicago and (formerly) DC?
December 20, 2009, 1:35 amAlice says:
theobromophile: You must not be in the D.C. area. It’s an hour after your post, and I have more than 20 inches of snow outside my door. The snow seems to have stopped, but D.C. won’t be back to functioning until mid-day Tuesday — at the earliest. More likely, it will be Wednesday and not at full function.
For retailers in the D.C. area, this will be one heck of a sock in the gut. For politicians on the Hill, heaven only knows.
December 20, 2009, 2:15 amGilbert says:
@Jeff Walden
Agreed! VC – please add my vote to kill the copyright warning at the bottom of RSS feed posts.
December 20, 2009, 3:56 amGilbert says:
If we are being AT ALL realistic, Article 3 needs to have a grandfather clause for existing legislation (see grandfather clause in Article 7)
December 20, 2009, 4:04 amJake says:
I dislike the “continue reading” links that require me to load a new page to finish reading a particular post. Please just let us scroll…
December 20, 2009, 4:29 amCalderon says:
More of a request for EV or other conspirators than a comment, but anyway … various commentators (including Robert Pozen in “Too Big To Save”) have argued that Congress’ financial reforms should include regulations that govern the content of reports issued by credit rating agencies. The commentators I’ve seen (including Pozen) say that because the agencies sell those reports, it’s commercial speech and there should not be a problem in regulating it. Under current 1A law this is legally wrong, but I was wondering what the proper legal arguments for and against treating credit rating agency reports as commercial speech are, and even if such reports were treated as commercial speech what regulations could be passed since such reports are mostly matters of opinion rather than fact?
December 20, 2009, 5:39 amAnatid says:
Chocolate Fudge, modified by Anatid
18 oz. (3 c.) semi-sweet chocolate chips
1 can (14 oz.) sweetened condensed (not evaporated!) Eagle Brand milk
1/3 c. powdered sugar
2 tsp. vanilla extract
1 tsp. coarse sea salt (if using regular salt, only use 2/3 tsp.)
Peppermint Topping (optional)
4 oz. (2/3 c.) white chips
2 tbsp. salted butter
1 large peppermint candy cane (1/3-1/2 cup when crushed)
milk as necessary
1. Melt chocolate chips in a double-boiler or in the microwave, stirring frequently. If using the microwave, do not pulse for more than 30sec without stirring. Continue heating and stirring until all clumps are melted and smooth.
2. Mix in sweetened condensed milk. You may need to briefly heat it again, but be careful – it burns easily.
3. Mix in the vanilla and the sea salt.
4. Fold in the powdered sugar. The fudge will grow stiff. If you don’t completely mix it in, then the small dots of remaining powdered sugar will look like a snowflake pattern when you cut the fudge.
5. Pour fudge into a greased 8″x8″ pan, or into a 9″x13″ pan for thinner fudge. Spread the surface smooth with a greased spatula. Cover and set aside.
6. Put the candy cane into a ziplock bag and crush it. The peppermint bits don’t have to be uniform in size – variation is interesting. The largest should be no bigger than 1/2 cm.
December 20, 2009, 8:16 am7. In a clean bowl, melt the white chips with the butter. Stir until smooth. If texture is too stiff to pour smoothly (this should be viscous but runnier than the stiffer fudge mixture) add milk in small amounts to thin it.
8. Pour white topping onto the fudge as evenly as possible. Immediately, dust it with the peppermint bits, covering the surface evenly. Gently press the bits into the topping as it cools.
9. Allow to chill overnight.
10. Turn out onto cutting board, slice, and serve. Fudge should be kept refrigerated but should be allowed to warm for 10-20 minutes before serving.
BT says:
Blackberry help request. I can pull up VC on my Blackberry just fine, what I cannot get are any comments. I get a Comments link that I can click on but once I do that there are no comments anywhere and all I have is a chance to leave a comment. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
December 20, 2009, 9:16 amSteve2 says:
Anatid, that’s the best comment ever…
December 20, 2009, 9:30 amGov98 says:
Is that really a rational basis for equal protection? I mean once you have to introduce the fact that in order to pass the bill the Senators had to be practically bought off with discrete benefits to their state why or how is it that that is not a problem? (e.g. Well, that crime only applies to 4 counties in our state.)
December 20, 2009, 9:44 amThatGuy says:
The squirrel has the nut.
December 20, 2009, 9:57 amrjs says:
Try the Internet.
December 20, 2009, 10:41 ambyomtov says:
I mean once you have to introduce the fact that in order to pass the bill the Senators had to be practically bought off with discrete benefits to their state why or how is it that that is not a problem?
It’s a problem, but I suspect the first instance of this was in very first session of Congress, so I don’t see why anyone should be shocked.
December 20, 2009, 10:45 ambyomtov says:
We have a winner!!
December 20, 2009, 10:47 amJon Rowe says:
Architect,
“Regeneration” is a tenet of certain reformed/evangelical Christians. It’s pretty much a sophisticated word for being “born again.” Not all orthodox Christians (as far as I know) hold to this doctrine. Why is this important? See my next comment. It’s about line drawing for who is and who is not a “Christian.”
December 20, 2009, 11:08 amChrisIowa says:
I prefer the “continue reading” on long posts. So whatever you do will be wrong.
December 20, 2009, 11:26 amChrisIowa says:
Will the snowstorm on the east coast have the effect of trapping congress in session, or will it keep congresscritters in their DC area residences and away from the session?
December 20, 2009, 11:32 amMartyA says:
I don’t understand why the Republicans haven’t sworn to fiscal responsibility; no spending, no earmarks, no pork, to differentiate them from the Bush Republicans and the Nancy/Harry/Hussein spenders.
December 20, 2009, 11:38 amBy election, the dems will be buying votes with stimulus money and paying ACORNers and local organizers to steal. The tea partiers will be drawing such clear distinctions but anywhere a tea party candidate has strength it will be only at the expense of the Republican.
Jon Rowe says:
Brett said:
Okay here’s the deal: We have a minimalistic definition of what it means to be a “Christian.” And that’s anyone who self identifies as such. During America’s Founding it was around 98%. Today, in America, it’s between 70-80%. This includes not just Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and the Pope (I know, he’s not American), but also Phil Donahue, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, John Shelby Spong, Gene Robinson, every single practicing Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness, and also, what might surprise some folks, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. When you see world demographics on how many “Christians” there are (over two billion) vs. “Muslims” (over 1 billion), this minimalistic standard is used.
America, when it was founded (1776-91), certainly qualifies as a “Christian Nation” under this demographic or minimalistic standard where even Jefferson — a man who called himself a Christian but denied (his words) “[t]he immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.” — qualifies as a “Christian.”
To the extent that the secular left believes the FFs were a bunch of “non-Christian Deists” — men who didn’t identity as “Christians” and wanted nothing to do with the Bible/Jesus — men like Thomas Paine and Elihu Palmer — they are flat out wrong. But if they can get over that error, what is there really for them to argue over if the definition “Christian” includes homosexuals, pro-abortionists, Mormons, folks who deny every single theological tenet the “orthodox” hold dear — but just believe in God and call themselves “Christians”?
That’s where the religious right/Christian Heritage types are wrong and beg to differ. When they argue for “reclaiming America” to its Christian roots, that virtually all of the FFs were “Bible believing Christians,” they are NOT dealing with such a broad understanding of Christianity. To the contrary, they’d never fight a political-historical culture war battle for THAT kind of inclusive Christianity.
So with that, what I’ve discovered after years of meticulous research that the “civil religion” of America’s Founding, something that oft-presented itself as “Christianity” by men like Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin who likelier understood themselves to be “Christian” not “Deists” was devoid of doctrines like “original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc.,” doctrines in which they personally did not believe, and doctrines which were purposefully excluded from America’s Founding political theological landscape (at least at the Federal level; we are talking about the Federal Founding from 1776-1791). So if THAT theological system qualifies as “Christianity” we can say America had a “Christian” Founding in a political theological sense, that America’s civil religion is “Christian.” However, if that system is NOT Christianity then America didn’t have a Christian Founding and its civil religion is not “Christian.”
The irony that I’ve discovered is the ones who should be recoiling the most from America’s Founding civil religion are the evangelicals and “orthodox”; but they are the one’s who try to claim the Founding as “Christian.” Many orthodox and evangelicals, though, do understand America didn’t have a “Christian” Founding, as they understand the creed.
And the ones who could embrace the “Christianity” of the American Founding those who practice a more “lax” kind of Christianity.
December 20, 2009, 11:39 amChris Travers says:
I agree with the second part but not the first. More resistance in life would mean folks with greater strength of character.
In support of this, how many folks have you watched make a transition into parenthood? Parenthood is not something one is “ready” to take on. It is a challenge folks must rise to. If there are more such challenges in life, we would be better off….
December 20, 2009, 11:42 amChris Travers says:
Given that Quakerism was instrumental in this nation’s early history and heritage, is arguably “Christian” (and labels itself such), denies original sin at least implicitly, is silent on issues of the trinity, has very unorthodox approaches to questions of incarnation, dismisses infallibility, is silent on atonement, and leaves questions on regeneration and eternal damnation to God (if you were God would you prefer followers who do the right thing because it is right or because they are afraid of eternal damnation?), I would argue that the answer is clearly yes.
But then Quakers were considered so subversive that advocating for tolerance of them was a crime in Boston that could get you exiled on pain of death before the revolution. The laws against Quakers in many such cities made the later Smith Act look pretty tame.
Do you consider the Quakers to be Christians?
December 20, 2009, 11:49 amChris Travers says:
Yep. We dropped our insurance when the rate was adjusted up 50% at the end of one year (for a family of four, from $800/month to $1200 per month).
For anyone who is self employed, insurance tends to come and go. One real fear I have is that if my right to drop insurance goes away, then the costs will go up even more.
The current approach to health care reform is entirely broken. Yes, we need heath care reform. Neither this, nor general Republican proposals, however will make things better. Both will likely make things worse. The proposals Obama made during his campaign were good ones and remarkably minor reforms, though. What we have gotten is a classic bait and switch.
December 20, 2009, 11:59 amChris Travers says:
John Rowe:
Great posts. Hope many read and think about them in detail.
December 20, 2009, 12:03 pmChris Travers says:
Funny. My first exposure to the term was from a (very) Catholic poet by the name of Dante Gabriel Rossetti from the 19th century. In one of the sonnets discussing his reactions to his wife’s untimely death, he wrote The Heart of the Night.
He seemed to see it as a state of regeneration following death.
December 20, 2009, 12:07 pmJon Rowe says:
Chris,
That’s a great question. On a personal note, I am hopefully agnostic, with deistic, theistic, and universalistic tendencies. I don’t call myself a “Christian” and one thing that’s standing in the way of me exploring Christianity further as a personal creed is, I want to be an outsider — a neutral referee — in this political-historical-theological-sociological study that I’ve undertaking. In short, I don’t personally judge who is or is not a “Christian,” but rather categorize according to outside standards. Though, I think what I personally believe could pass for “Christianity” in many liberal mainline churches.
What that, you’ve hit upon the perfect outlier — the Quakers. My friend Dr. Gregg Frazer — a professor at The Master’s College (PhD in political science from Claremont Graduate University on this very matter) — is himself a fundamentalist Christian, one who probably doesn’t believe Roman Catholics qualify as “Christians.” (Or any Protestant denomination that doesn’t accept the doctrine of regeneration/being “born again”).
Yet, when he constructed his ten point test for what it meant to be a “Christian” in late 18th Century America, he formed a lowest common denominator among the dominant churches of that era and included some groups that wouldn’t pass his personal test (or what he says “the Bible’s test”) for “Christianity.” That included Roman Catholics, some Anglicans (though I think there was a Calvinistic current in some Anglican churches who would accept doctrines like being born-again). You can view his 10 point test here.
Yet, he leaves out the Quakers. And indeed if there is a form of “Christianity” of that era that is closest to what Jefferson, J. Adams, Washington, Franklin personally believed, it was Quakerism. And indeed, the Founders tended to love the Quakers, for that very reason (that they were non-creedal, and didn’t care too much about doctrines like original sin, the Trinity). Of course, they had a big problem with the Quakers’ refusal to take up arms against GB; but I think the Quakers got a big pass from them precisely because the FFs loved their non-creedal, non-caring too much about the Trinity form of “Christianity.”
And on a personal note, the Quakers are one of the “Christian” sects I’ve thought about joining.
December 20, 2009, 12:09 pmJon Rowe says:
Chris:
Thanks!
December 20, 2009, 12:10 pmChrisIowa says:
The Republican leaders in the Iowa legislature have said that they are going to be emphasizing their social agenda, primarily an amendment on SSM. Despite this time of budget and economic crisis. I think we can write off the Republican Party of Iowa for this cycle unless something radically changes.
December 20, 2009, 12:13 pmAlice says:
We had PLENTY of warning about how much snow we’d get and when we’d get it. The most politically shrewd politicians should have holed up in their offices and not gone home. However, what has actually happened, I don’t know.
December 20, 2009, 12:31 pmChris Travers says:
John Rowe:
Actually a surprising number of Quakers participated somewhat nontraditionally in the Revolutionary War, and there were even a few who directly took up arms. One prominent Quaker in the Colonial army was General Greene.
December 20, 2009, 12:42 pmValentino Rossi says:
My nephew’s autoloader is one of the “automatic” weapons that might have been outlawed by those groups opposed to firearms had not 2nd amendment supporters worked to show that an autoloader is not an automatic weapon. Typically people continue to refer to an autoloader as an automatic, and the public at large did not know that they were not the same thing. As far as I know, legislation to make hunting accessible for the handicapped has only come about over the last thirty to thirty-five years. In addition, especially in Illinois where the State Police determine just who merits possession of an F.O.I.D. card and therefore who can even touch let alone own a firearm, a handicapped person may be denied an F.O.I.D. card merely because of the course of medical treatment for his or her handicap (it’s all determined by the Illinois State Police – not your physician). Finally, understand that Illinois is not a firearms friendly state: It doesn’t allow concealed carry, hunters can be (and have been) repeatedly written citations on the whim of a game warden, and assistant states attorneys will prosecute those hunters even when no law has been violated. As for those of you who don’t think hitting multiple live moving targets one, two, three, and in this case four (with three shots) is difficult, please try doing it – specifically in Illinois (I’d rate it to be at least as difficult as shooting a hole in one at a PGA course) especially as waterfowl are migratory and ducks have been hunted since the early fall and are quite wary the last week of the season. Better yet, research hemiplegia (my nephew’s handicap) and perhaps you’ll better understand why I am so proud of him and this shooting accomplishment.
December 20, 2009, 12:53 pmbyomtov says:
Jon Rowe,
I don’t understand Frazer’s distinctions. Is it too snarky to say he defines who is a Christian to suit his purpose, without much regard for consistency.
That is, if you want to talk about how the US was founded by Christians you take a very broad view. But if you want to talk about who the real Christians are today suddenly you narrow the definition considerably. Maybe he’s not making both of those claims, but if he is then something’s wrong.
December 20, 2009, 1:05 pmJon Rowe says:
byomtov,
I disagree. For his personal reasons — what he’s dedicated his life to as an evangelical — Frazer takes a fairly narrow view of what it means to be a Christian (i.e., born again, evangelical, the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God).
For late 18th Century American purposes, his view of “Christianity” is broader and it is defined by a lowest common denominator among the creeds of every single late 18th Century Christian Church, that is except the Quakers. There is nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about that standard.
We are not changing the standards from the 18th Century to today. We are using the same standards. There are three: 1) The strictest — someone’s personal narrow gate view (i.e., only practicing Roman Catholics are Christians, only Sola-Scriptura fundamentalists are Christians, etc.). 2) the late 18th Century American Consensus view that includes, among others, evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, (a 10 point test that includes i. Trinity; ii. Providential God; iii. Deity of Christ; iv. Original Sin; v. Virgin Birth; vi. Atonement; vii. Resurrection; viii. Eternal Punishment for Sin; ix. Justification by Faith; and x. Infallibility of the biblical canon.) As noted the Quakers throw a monkey wrench into the formula. And 3) the formal/nominal Christian view where anyone who calls or thinks of himself a “Christian” is a “Christian” regardless of what his beliefs on theological tenets.
America’s key Founders [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Hamilton before his deathbed conversion to orthodox Christianity] provably pass test 3 for “Christian” only. There isn’t a whole lot of evidence btw, of GW, JM calling themselves “Christians” either. But if you asked them I think they probably would consider themselves “Christians” in a similar way that Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin considered themselves “Christians.”
December 20, 2009, 1:31 pmbyomtov says:
Jon Rowe,
Yes. I understand that he is describing various standards and applying a very loose one to the founders and a very tight one today. That’s fine as far as it goes.
The issue of consistency arises when he starts mixing those different standards. (And I don’t know whether he himself does that, though there are certainly those who do). To put it in simple terms, it is inconsistent to claim that because most of the founders were Category 3 Christians, Category 1&2 Christianity ought somehow be regarded with special respect, or be privileged over other religions, etc. today.
Now, I happen to believe that the founders’ religious beliefs really should be irrelevant anyway, but even if someone disagrees, it makes no sense to cross the categories.
December 20, 2009, 2:03 pmJon Rowe says:
byomtov,
I understand your concerns — and I personally believe everyone should be treated equally with regards to her religion — I think, further, the FFs believed something similar, though they did tend to privilege Providentialism or monotheism, in their rhetorical addresses (but didn’t wish to deprive atheists or polytheists of any tangible rights) — but I still disagree there is any double standard thing going on here.
With all of this paying homage to the Founders, if they were category 3 type Christians, why on earth does it follow that categories 1 or 2 (which they flunk!) would get any kind of respect or privilege? Arguably the opposite conclusion follows. This is one reason why the “Christian America” types argue against the claim the FFs are all Deists. They believe that pays secularism, deism, perhaps atheism and agnosticism (which some argue are the logical consequence of deism) too much privilege.
The folks in categories 1&2 (that is “orthodox Trinitarian” Christians) tend to believe those in category 3 are NOT Christians, but something else. According to the premises of 1&2, if we accept the key FFs really did fit into category 3, that 3 was the political-theological driver of the American Founding, America was NOT founded to be a “Christian Nation.”
This is what Dr. Frazer argues in his 2003 thesis, which, by all accounts should have been published into a book by one of the big academic publishers.
December 20, 2009, 2:20 pmbyomtov says:
Jon Rowe,
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t think we disagree on much. If I understand you correctly, Frazer’s argument is the opposite of what I feared.
December 20, 2009, 2:31 pmJon Rowe says:
Pretty much.
When it comes to what America, as an “ideal” was founded to be, he argues America was founded to be “religious” not “Christian” and that the key FFs were “religious” but not “Christian.” But he also argues against the secular-left Deist narrative. He his view is too far to the right for the secular left idealists but too far to the left for religious right idealists. Though, when it comes to his preferred public policy, he’s pretty much a meat and potatoes religious right conservative.
Though I note his view of the Bible leads him to a non-Dominionist kind of religious right fundamentalism. He’s more concerned about saving souls than politics.
December 20, 2009, 3:08 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Open Thread -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Law, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Open Thread: We haven’t had an open thread in a while. Comment away. Copyright © 2009 This feed is for personal.. http://bit.ly/5pdzBc [...]
December 20, 2009, 4:22 pmKharn says:
Why couldn’t Bingham write his statements so they could never be misquoted and his intention always clear? I’m snowed in and the nearest liquor store is outside of walking distance so I’m unable to participate in the Bingham Drinking Game.
December 20, 2009, 4:53 pmChris Travers says:
Laura:
Given the various economic issues of the last couple years, when I think of an appropriate Lewis Carrol stanza, I think of:
He thought he saw a banker’s clerk
Descending from a bus.
He looked again and found it was
A hippopotamus.
“If this should stay to dine,” he said,
“There won’t be much for us!”
Or perhaps regarding the DoJ filing on the ACORN case:
December 20, 2009, 6:14 pmHe thought he saw an Argument
That proved he was the Pope:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bar of Mottled Soap.
‘A fact so dread,’ he faintly said,
‘Extinguishes all hope!’
byomtov says:
Jon Rowe,
Though, when it comes to his preferred public policy, he’s pretty much a meat and potatoes religious right conservative.
Oops. I briefly thought he was smarter than the Falwell/Robertson gang. Guess not.
December 20, 2009, 9:19 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Chris, I love that one! We make up new stanzas for it all the time.
He thought he saw a parking spot
A-glinting in the sun.
He looked again and saw it was
A person with a gun.
“It only goes to show,” he said,
“I’m not the only one!”
My husband and I made that one up in the parking lot of Eastgate Shopping Center in Memphis.
December 20, 2009, 10:04 pmLeo Marvin says:
Pretty persuasive advocate, huh?
December 21, 2009, 1:24 amChrisTS says:
I was raised in the Unitarian Universalist Church. Our dogma, such as it was: rejected original sin, asserted universal salvation (as only appropriate for a rational and loving god); rejected the trinity, and left Jesus’ divinity open for discussion.
We thought of ourselves as ‘Christians’ because we accepted Christ as the greatest moral teacher, divinely inspired.
I suspect that won’t cut it.
December 21, 2009, 7:37 pmChrisTS says:
Leo Marvin, Laura, Orin, and others who might be interested:
An update on my hypothetical situation with a student diagnosed with several problems including OCD. Imagine that said student is threatening to sue me, another professor,and possibly the institution for receiving failing grades. You might imagine that this hypothetical student did not turn in work in all classes and claims it was the result of a computer problem.
Happy Holidays. :-}
December 21, 2009, 7:41 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Dang, Chris.
Your syllabus has a policy, right, about work being turned in and how to contact the teacher in case of problems?
My junior year in college we had in our dorm hall an incoming transfer student who’d gone to jr. college the first 2 years and was a bit coddled. She dropped some courses she needed to graduate, and so when she applied for her degree she was denied. This student was going to sue her advisor for letting her drop those courses. We dissuaded her by reminding her that her course requirements were spelled out in the catalogs we all got, and that getting a four-year degree ought to mean you were in some sense a grownup; and that she would only make a fool of herself if she tried that. Ultimately she just went to summer school and finished up.
December 21, 2009, 8:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
If any lawyers are still reading this, I have an earnest question.
What does
say that
does not say?
December 21, 2009, 8:14 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Jon Rowe,
I think it might be most useful to determine what is “Christian” by appealing to something historical and doctrinal rather than simply to personal opinion.
We’ve got the, probably earlier and more inclusive, “Apostle’s Creed” and the more precise Nicene Creed (with later modifications, none of which are contradictory), but they aren’t contradictory.
Given that the Nicene Creed is about as early as it gets, early 4th century, and was expressly designed as a profession of faith, to clearly define which beliefs on points of doctrine met the standard of “Christianity” (vice heresy and error) and is accepted by Orthodox, Catholics and the majority of, historic and new, Protestant denominations, I think a simple place to draw the line would be to ask; can an individual claimant to Christianity accede to the Nicene Creed in total?
If not, they may be “Christian-ish” but they aren’t Christian per se.
December 21, 2009, 9:05 pmChrisTS says:
Laura:
Oh, yes. All is played by the rules on the professors’ end.
Let’s just hope there are some sane parents around.
December 21, 2009, 10:02 pmMark N. says:
Thanks! That book actually looks quite interesting.
December 21, 2009, 10:03 pmChrisTS says:
Everyone who thinks Orin Kerr is HOT, please say so.
December 21, 2009, 11:17 pmneurodoc says:
I can assure you that as a neurologist, even one who hasn’t practiced as a clinician in many years, I don’t need to research hemiplegia, which is simply paralysis of the upper and lower limbs on one side or the other, and may come about in any number of different ways. The differential diagnosis of infantile hemiplegia is a basic question in pediatrics, and the pediatric neurology case I was presented when I took my oral boards exam was an infant girl with a very obvious right hemiplegia, which had been acquired in utero.
I’m glad that hunting is something your nephew can do well and enjoy, and I appreciate the tutelage with respect to hunting rifles. I do favor some form of gun control, but see that it can be difficult to agree on exactly which guns should be subject to what controls.
December 21, 2009, 11:41 pmLeo Marvin says:
Chris, if your student does sue, the most important decision you’ll face is hiring the lawyer best suited to get you the result you deserve against this plaintiff. I recommend Thomas J. Capano, Esq.
December 22, 2009, 1:15 amSimon Jester says:
Maybe prosecutors should remember that they serve the citizens, not the government or their own interests. They should charge suspects CORRECTLY, rather than engage in the bait-and-switch bullying that has become the status quo.
See Silvergate; CATO.
Prosecutors who cannot read the statutes they enforce should be dumped out of office and replaced – preferably with laypeople, not lawyers.
;->
-SJ
December 22, 2009, 10:57 amChrisTS says:
Thanks, Hon (and happy holidays!).
It seems the hypothetical student is, now, being charged with academic honesty violations (we used to call it ‘cheating’) in 2 other courses. I think I have moved down on the Enemies List.
Still. I’m such a schmuck that I find it all very sad.
December 26, 2009, 11:21 pmChrisTS says:
Leo:
OMG! I totally did not recognize the name. Thanks for the [disgusted] laugh.
I have to admit: this guy is an argument for the DP.
December 26, 2009, 11:22 pm