frankhagan.com

The Supreme Court decided this morning that the Second Amendment does apply to the individual’s right to own guns, just as all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights apply to individuals. But before gun advocates cheer, remember this ruling appears to apply to the Federal Government, and my not apply to states.

A collection of quotes from the majority opinion, courtesy of SCOTUS Blog (with a H/T to Sister Toldjah):

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

Clearly, there are some limits to the right, as the majority directs the District to register and license handguns:

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

Further to that idea that the right can be regulated:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Less clear to me is whether or not the decision is binding on the states (the District of Columbia is Federal land, so there might be tougher restrictions the states can impose):

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

Link to the complete decision in a PDF file is HERE.

Developing …

Politics

How do we take back all the hysterical reporting over the last 6 months?

The Commerce Department, as reported by the Cato Institute says there was no recession:

Good news on the economy, sort of. The Commerce Department reported this morning that it has revised the economy’s growth rate in the first quarter of 2008 to 1.0 percent. That is slightly higher than the government’s earlier two estimates and it means we have probably dodged a technical recession, at least for the first half of this year.

Whew! I feel better now.

Politics

We naturally think a trend will continue indefinitely, as evidenced by the housing bubble that just burst and the natural tendency for sports fans to rally around a powerhouse rather than their more logical regional choice.

That tendency is no where more dangerous than in evaluating success or failure in conflicts:

In both Iraq, where al Qaeda in Iraq seems to be in deep trouble, and in Colombia, where the FARC is on the ropes, public statements by officials give hints of a premature sense of triumph.

This lesson is not lost on some, including a senior intelligence official who told the Washington Post:

“I think it would be premature at this point,” a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains “the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks.”

Douglas Farah at CounterTerrorism Blog

Farah continues the post at his regular blog here:

Giving these groups a respite in the confidence that they have been seriously wounded is a potentially-fatal mistake. They need to remain relevant, and will use their diminishing resources produce the most spectacular results. That is why it is imperative to continue the sometimes-boring but necessary systematic work of following up every lead and continuing the pressure as if our lives depend on it. Because they likely do.

There is also the political consideration; if in their dying gasp, AQ in Iraq stages a spectacular attack, the political left will hasten to abandon the entire effort because of “new” evidence that the tide has turned back against us. Or, the Republican administration could draw down troops too quickly, weakening our position, but strengthening the party’s chances in November. Either situation provides the path to failure, and we must resist them both.

I’m cautiously optimistic about Iraq, but less optimistic about America having the political will to fight its enemies. We may be willing to trade the 1960’s sentiment of “better red than dead” for appeasement to a coming Muslim world. Do burkas come in red, white and blue?

Politics

For quite some time I’ve been trying to formulate how to explain how Creationists and ID thinkers express themselves in a very different way from those engaged in the sciences, and how these differences seem almost like the Christian and the scientist are speaking different languages. I don’t have a complete explanation yet, but in thinking about it, I see that it happens both in methods of debate and in differing standards of proof. Here, I’ll talk about the differences in methods of debate, and why both sides often don’t understand the other.

On the political front, where most Creationists and ID believers stand, the basic method of debate is the Socratic Method:

The Socratic method is a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, which may subconsciously shape one’s opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances.

Compare this “negative method” of questioning to “drill down” to a core with the scientific method that forms the basis of science instruction (and therefore, the standard that scientists adhere to):

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

The science-trained mind cannot comprehend why the socratic questioner asks a few questions and draws a conclusion; that’s not how it is supposed to work. For the science-trained mind, you assemble the facts and work forward; in the Socratic method, you drill down to what you already know.

In debate, these two forms of thinking “speak past each other”. The audience hears the version they are more familiar with, and bizarre results ensue … “bizarre” to the other side, at least.

Its not a well formed argument yet, and needs some work. But like my nascent theory about differing standards of proof, where the scientist is looking for testable results and the faithful are looking for a looser “legal standard” (such as “preponderance of the evidence”), it can help explain the confusion in the arguments themselves.

Faith, Politics, Science

While the comments show that the strident, irrational atheists don’t like it, PvM at Panda’s Thumb provides an excellent commentary on theistic evolution and how it is not at odds with Christian faith:

One of the major processes of evolution is variation and natural selection. Those familiar with natural selection will remember that Darwin appealed to artificial selection to make his case for natural selection. In other words, God can at least in principle affect the process of natural selection. Second of all, the process of variation. Much confusion exists over the meaning of the term random here. Sufficient to say that random seems to be misunderstood by many an ID Creationist who misinterprets it as ‘unguided’, or ‘guided by a pure chance process’ when in fact logic dictates that random refers to the immediate relevance of said variation in the environment. Furthermore, science has shown how variation can become biased by the same processes of evolution, as long as the source of this variation in variation is genetic. In other words, natural selection can select for sources of variation which are more likely to be successful.

PvM notes that the process of evolution is more akin to other natural processes we attribute to God. I have no problem reconciling the language of the Bible when it says God can measure the volume of water in the oceans in the hollow of His hand (Isa 40:12) with the scientific principle that a hand large enough to hold all the water couldn’t possibly scoop it up (displacement, etc.) We don’t quarrel with the scientific theory that a rainbow is due to light refraction through water vapor in the air, while at the same time believing that it is also God’s promise that He won’t send another flood to destroy all humanity (Ge 9:13).

In fact, it is easy to argue that God’s Creation was set in motion to eventually result in a form of life which could gain spirituality and a soul and thus become aware of His existence. Furthermore, even if God had set in motion a Darwinian process, He could still have intervened, as I have explained above, without violating natural law. In other words, the process would still appear purely Darwinian and at the same time would be guided.

Here, PvM gets to the essence of the modern Christian’s thought about creation and evolution. The reaction against evolution in the US has been primarily a fundamentalist reaction, spurred on by unscientific statements in textbooks that evolution “must be” random and must be “without direction”. I think these statements are from the atheist’s heart, rather than from the scientist’s mind. The truth is that science can only prove what is provable, and the existence of a “supernatural” creator … one outside the laws and boundaries of the physical world … cannot be proved or disproved. For this reason, science must be functionally atheist in assessing the physical world. The Christian scientist remains both functionally atheist in his work while entirely spiritual in his life. There is no contradiction in this, any more than there is in allowing a mechanic to use a wrench to fix your car rather than a prayer shawl.

The Creationist and ID claim that you should look for the creator’s mark on every unexplained feature in our physical world serves only to abandon inquiry and, in the end, stop the worshipful practice of learning more about the world (created) through (natural processes). For even the atheist worships God when he observes and catalogs the magnificence of the universe.

Faith, Politics, Science