Why Bill Maher is the Wrong Target for a Commencement Speaker Protest

As part of the fallout from Bill Maher's comments about Islam, comments from which he finds no room for retreat, some individuals and groups are arguing that Berkeley should withdraw its invitation for Maher to speak at its fall commencement. On the issue of Islam, Maher relies almost exclusively on the spotlight fallacy and hasty generalization, plucking examples of horror from around the Islamic world and arguing that they prove that Islam is somehow worse than other religions. He stubbornly refuses to consider challenges to his position -- people pointing out that he conflates regional, cultural practices that arose and exist independently of Islam with the teachings of Islam, people pointing out that he draws his primary examples from Islamic nations without regard to whether those nations reflect what is typical in other Islamic nations or populations, or the practices of the majority of Muslims. He'll present Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwah against Salman Rushdie as if it reflected -- and reflects -- the views and wishes of every Muslim in the world.

On the most recent episode of Real Time, Bill Maher quoted his friend Reza Aslan, on the issue of whether or not he's a bigot, emphasizing that Alsan is Muslim and says he's not a bigot. Here's the larger quote:

I've done [Real Time] every season for four or five years. I love being on the show. And listen, I've said repeatedly that Bill Maher is not a bigot. I know him. We are friends. We hang out with each other, backstage. He loves having me on the show despite the fact that he disagrees with me on a lot of things and that shows the kind of person that he is.

What I have said, however, is that if people are constantly saying that the way you are talking about something is coming across as bigoted, you might want to stop and think about how you’re saying these things. Bill Maher says he's not a bigot, I absolutely believe him. So maybe he needs to reexamine why people keep talking about him as a bigot.

Aslan has also pointed out that Maher is not very sophisticated in his views of Islam. What I think Aslan is trying to say, in a somewhat gentle way, is that Maher is not advancing his position out of animus or intolerance, and thus is not guilty of that form of bigotry, but is instead advancing his position because he does not have a sufficient body of information, and has not applied a sufficient amount of thought to the subject. I believe Aslan is suggesting that if Maher were to do so he would likely reconsider his position. [Insert maxim about leading horses to water.]

From my perspective, Maher's position on Islam and the Arab world, notably including his positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, reflect a cognitive insularity on those subjects, epistemic closure. At times he ridicules conservatives as living in the bubble -- these subjects are his bubble. He appears to have held consistent views on Arabs and Islam for much of his life, he's quite comfortable with those beliefs, and he sees no need to let facts get in the way. That doesn't mean that he completely avoids the facts -- to the contrary, as his mode of argument suggests, he is inclined to search for, interpret, and prioritize information in a way that confirms his existing beliefs -- confirmation bias. Maher is clearly more than smart enough to take a step back, review the evidence, and see what people like Aslan are trying to explain to him -- but, as occasionally happens to all of us, he isn't ready to let go of his preconceptions.

The funny thing is, all of Maher's leading critics, including those who were or are Muslim, share his perspective that there is something wrong with the practice of Islam in the Middle East and in some other parts of the world. They see Islam as being abused in the same manner that other religions have been historically abused, and in which they continue to be abused in some nations and cultures. It's an argument that Maher, an avowed atheist and critic of all religions, should find quite consistent with his other views -- it's not that there's something special about Islam that makes it particularly vulnerable to fundamentalism and extremism, but that there's something wrong with the political, cultural and economic contexts from which the fundamentalism and extremism emerge. Islam is a problem not because it's special, but because it's the dominant religion in those regions, and thus the one most easily exploited by fundamentalists and extremists. You speak the language of your audience.

Like Maher, his critics also rely heavily on the spotlight fallacy, plucking quotes out of Maher's past performances, speeches and monologs, where he has made some pretty outrageous statements. But what else would you expect? The man is a comedian who loves to jokingly scold his audience for groaning at the less outrageous of his jokes. He has made a career out of being politically incorrect, a term that you may recall was the name of the T.V. show that made him famous. I recently read one of his monologs in which, his sarcastic tone of voice being invisible on the printed page, he appeared to be endorsing birtherism. You will have absolutely no trouble finding quotes with which to condemn him, even if his presentation of the quoted material might suggest that he held a different opinion than the one he was ostensibly voicing. He's not Sarah Silverman, but he does sometimes go for the punch line that's going to shock, rattle, or even offend his audience -- and it's all too easy to inadvertently or deliberately misinterpret that sort of punch line.

If Maher were invited by Berkeley to participate in a panel discussion on Islam, where a variety of voices could be heard, I would hope that the students that are offended by the prospect of his giving a commencement address would welcome his participation. (Or perhaps criticize it from the standpoint of, "Can't we find a scholar instead of a comedian" -- although back when Bill Maher frequently had comedians participate in his Real Time panels, sometimes the comedians provided more interesting and thoughtful commentary than the experts.)

A compelling argument made about commencement addresses is that they're not like other forms of on-campus speech. If you want to participate in commencement, you are a captive audience for the commencement speaker and are expected to act with appropriate decorum. Also, commencement speakers are often paid very large sums of money for their presentations, money that is drawn from the students. It is fair to say that students should have a larger voice when it comes to objecting to the participation of certain controversial figures in their commencement ceremonies than in other campus activities, where in my opinion the focus should be on debate, not exclusion.

If Bill Maher were going to address graduating students with an exposition of his views of religion and Islam, the students would be justified in objecting to his speech. He's not an expert in those areas, his commentary on Islam is deeply flawed, and it would be an abuse of his platform to speak about his views of religion. However, it is more than safe to say that Maher has no intention of using his commencement presentation to speak about religion, gender relations, or any of the other issues that occasionally land him in warm to hot water. He's already said as much:

But let me say this to those students worried about that: I promise this will be your day. This is a commencement speech. The issue is you. My speech was, is, I hope, going to be about you and whatever tips I thought that could actually help you in life because I already lived through it. That and my funk about how Jewish women hate to have sex.

That last sentence, of course, is an example of the sort of punch line I previously mentioned. I'm not arguing that Maher's punch lines and groaners don't reflect his political views -- but I am pointing out that some of them quite obviously do not, and many others fall on a spectrum between what he believes and what he believes will generate the loudest laugh or groan -- with his being one of the nation's wealthiest comedians -- one of the nation's wealthiest people -- by virtue of his knowing how to go for the laughs and groans.

I am not sure that the students opposed to Maher's appearance ever thought that he was going to address religion in his speech. I think that their primary concern is that he is hostile to Islam, and that students should not be compelled to sit through a speech by somebody whose views they find troubling, or even odious. Ibraham Hooper of Cair pointed out that nobody is going to suggest that the Grand Wizard of the KKK is an appropriate commencement speaker -- that is, we can reach a point where there will be near-universal agreement that an individual should not speak at a college commencement even if he promises not to touch on subjects that his audience might deem offensive -- but there's an enormous distance between Maher and a KKK Grand Wizard. Inviting Maher to speak doesn't open the floodgates.

The exchange with Cooper illustrates how opportunists and demagogues can take a quote out of context to use it to bash the speaker. During the exchange, Cooper's debate opponent jumped on the reference to a KKK Grand Wizard, chortling, "So Bill Maher is the Grand Dragon of the KKK? I can’t until Bill Maher hears that. I think Bill will have a heyday with that." The host immediately pointed out the obvious -- that no such comparison had been made -- but that didn't stop hacks like Eric Bolling of Fox News or Alex Griswold at the Daily Caller from plucking the statement out-of-context and lying about what Hooper meant. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that after making his false characterization, Griswold quotes the exchange and thereby makes plain that his characterization is false.

Why let Maher speak?

• Protesting Maher reinforces his position - When Maher argues that Muslims don't do enough to object to the actions of extremists who claim to be acting in the name of their religion, he's not really being fair -- people have the right to live their ordinary lives without having to comment to anybody willing to listen, "That wackaloon you read about on the news doesn't represent my views." But when Muslims loudly protest Maher, they risk perpetuating the stereotype that Muslims want to shut down any criticism of their religion, while fueling the argument that "Those people find the time to protest Maher, but have nothing to say about the wackaloon I heard about on the news." I'm not arguing that Muslim students should never try to have an anti-Muslim speaker excluded from giving a commencement address, and it is appropriate to object to those who for example argue for the forcible conversion of Muslims to other religions, advocate bombing Muslim holy sites, advocate suppressing the speech and religious rights of Muslims. But when you target somebody like Maher, the more effective way to get your point across is not to try to shut him up, but to avoid playing to his stereotype.

• If You Look Hard Enough, You'll Find Something Offensive About Your Commencement Speaker - In the YouTube era, with news archives at students' fingertips, and with the long memory of the Internet, we're in an era in which it will be difficult for any celebrity to give a commencement speech, as if you look hard enough at any person you're likely to find a quote that can be presented (or misrepresented) as offensive to somebody. Finding offensive quotes is easy with somebody like Maher, as they're literally his bread and butter, but pretty much every famous person is going to have a gaffe or misstatement, or a political position they've long abandoned, preserved somewhere.

• You lay a foundation for exclusion of other speakers - Once you create a context in which a person can be excluded from giving a commencement speech based upon views that some students find offensive, even though those views will not be shared in the commencement address, you open the floodgates. It is far better to set a high standard for exclusion than to create what amounts to a heckler's veto. Sure, a great many commencement speakers may end up falling into the gray area between the tiny number who have immaculate public records and those virtually all would agree to be villanous, but free speech will fare better if we keep the line for exclusion as close to pure black as comfortably possible.

Maher's appearance presents the students of Berkeley with a tremendous opportunity to very publicly challenge Maher's positions on Islam. Rather than pressing forward with an effort to exclude Maher from giving a commencement address, I suggest taking advantage of the fact that the eyes of the world are now on Maher and Berkeley. Organize a symposium on Islam and fundamentalist violence, bring in some knowledgeable scholars, invite Maher to participate in a panel. You can't buy publicity like this -- if you want to take advantage of an opportunity to educate the public about Islam, run with it.

Joe Lieberman, Offender of the First Amendment

Another wonderful idea from Joe Lieberman.

Now if only we can get the Senate to add buttons to members' pages so users can flag them for "pandering", "obfuscation", "mendacity", "bought and paid for", and "just plain idiotic".

It's Too Hard To Ignore Constituents?

Robert Wright reads more into President Obama's woes than an opposition party united in its desire to defeat his initiatives, and the general polarization of the electorate (something that may be more a matter of perception than reality). The people are using technology to peaceably unite, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The horror! Wright writes,

Had technological change stopped in 1950, President Obama would be basking in the glow of victory. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies and labor unions posed challenges to health care reform, but their challenges were manageable, and as of a few weeks ago Obama had found a sausage recipe that these groups could stomach.

No, seriously, a single seat changes hands in the Senate bringing in a 41'st vote for The Party of "No", and it's the fault of the Internet? Months of wrangling over a healthcare bill, largely opposed by individual citizens based upon its handouts to those same special interest groups we had during Wright's "good old days", potentially defeated by the fact that the Senate can't reach a supermajority by one vote, and the problem is with the electorate at large? Seriously?

The special interests Wright seems to favor are presumably Special Interest 1.0, as Wright identifies "Special Interest 2.0" as the current "generation of political technology" - such as mass mail. He sees Tea Partiers as part of Special Interest 2.0, as they were supported by traditional special interest groups and corporations; but speaks of an emerging "Special Interest 3.0"

The Web’s many “cocoons” — ideologically homogenous blogs and Web sites — are in a sense interest groups; they’re clusters of people who share a political perspective and can convene only because of the nearly frictionless organizing technology that is the Internet. Some aren’t themselves activist, but most provide a kind of sustenance to activists who carry their banner.

All of this — a balkanized media landscape and the activist groups that spring from it — is Special Interest 3.0.

Big, scary bloggers? And political websites? Seriously?

I think Wright pretty much misses the boat here. First, sure, there are weblogs that cater to particular ideologies. But there are also print publications that do the same thing. Some of those ideological blogs are even owned by the companies that produce the print publications. Perhaps Wright is concerned that, as blogs can (generally) be read for free, more people read them? But that wouldn't of itself mean that there are more factions; just that some of the factions appear to have more members.

Frankly, even if you include blogs that have come from people outside of the traditional sphere of influence, or people inside the sphere who started blogging, you're really only talking about a small number of weblogs that have any significant influence. Most political blogs - just like most blogs on other subjects - don't get many readers and don't have anything that could be considered to be a politically influential set of followers, let alone a group of followers ready to mobilize at the author's command.

Within that context, it's perhaps no surprise that Wright fails to identify any of the problematic websites or weblogs, instead speaking in broad generalities.

The new information technology doesn’t just create generation-3.0 special interests; it arms them with precision-guided munitions. The division of readers and viewers into demographically and ideologically discrete micro-audiences makes it easy for interest groups to get scare stories (e.g. “death panels”) to the people most likely to be terrified by them. Then pollsters barrage legislators with the views of constituents who, having been barraged by these stories, have little idea what’s actually in the bills that outrage them.

The "death panel" lie was started by a known individual, Betsy McCaughey. She passed her lie along to Sarah Palin, who fed it to the masses. That's not "Special Interest 3.0" or even "2.0", and isn't something you can blame on the Internet. Perhaps Fox News and a mainstream media that is more interested in creating controversy than in educating the public, but those are factions Wright has told us are part of Special Interest 1.0. Some blogs and websites may have been happy to serve as an echo chamber for the McCaughey-Palin lies, but the mainstream media and numerous elected officials also happily repeated the lies. And we can again see how much of the fault for the possible demise of healthcare reform lies in the Senate.

Moreover, targeting small groups of people likely to be affected by a political message is far from a new phenomenon, and is far from web-based. I would argue that, contrary to Wright's thesis, most targeting still occurs under the "Special Interest 2.0" mass mailing (and mass phone call) model (at times backed up by good, old-fashioned pressing of the flesh). I am not aware of any broad effort on the part of special interest groups to contact and coopt bloggers and webmasters to serve as Svengalis to a mass of mindless followers, and I doubt that such an effort would succeed - first because it underestimates the resistance you're likely to encounter from the bloggers themselves, and second because it overestimates the bloggers' influence over their readers.

To the extent that a blogger picks something up from an echo chamber, repeats it, and inspires outrage among her readers, it's a product of self-selection - the bloggers readers are more likely to be outraged by the things that outrage the blogger, and are there because they share interests. When the outrage arises from misinformation or a lie, such as "death panels", that's a shame. But I suspect that politicians (and perhaps Wright) are more concerned when the outrage is based upon fact. People getting upset, for example, that during the opening moves of healthcare reform some very large concessions were made to "Special Interest 1.0" factions, and that as a result we were certain to have a less effective, more expensive bill. But you know what? Those "Special Interest 1.0" factions still won - they got what they wanted and, if a bill does pass, the concessions they obtained will be preserved in the final bill.

Wright is concerned about "the din of narrow interests and widespread but ephemeral passions", and fears that if politicians are exposed to what their constituents want they will become weak in the knees and our government will effectively be transformed to a direct democracy. Hardly. I do believe that we're seeing politicians cut their milk teeth in dealing with online mass communication - and that a lot of the current problems perceived by Wright have less to do with the so-called "Special Interest 3.0" than they do with politicians' contemptuousness for the voices of the people, individual and collective, as expressed through "new media". No doubt, websites and weblogs help even small groups unite and attempt to advance their goals, but there's absolutely no evidence that politicians care what they have to say any more than they have in the past. The problem, as I see it, is that many politicians (and pundits, and news personalities) are contemptuous of the notion that the people should be able to openly and visibly criticize the and "call them out" - unfairly or, perhaps especially, fairly. And they thus speak contemptuously and dismissively of "bloggers" - an ill-conceived response that can perpetuate or expand the sphere of unwanted criticism.

But it requires far more than a handful of people on an obscure website or weblog to catch anybody's eye, or even be deemed worthy of a dismissive comment. When a theme takes off online, you can be pretty confident that it would have taken off under "Special Interest 2.0" or even "1.0" days - but it's a lot harder to ignore. If we're talking death panels, then we're talking about a failure first on the part of the mainstream media to bluntly call a lie a "lie", and perhaps moreso their unwillingness to turn away a controversial speaker they know to be lying if they think it will generate readers or ratings. It's also a failure of our political leadership in both parties - the Democrats for being unable to get in front of the lie, and make the public aware of the facts; the Republicans for in many cases actively perpetuating the lie, and in most other cases for turning a blind eye to anything that they believed would hurt the Democratic Party and President. None of that can be blamed on "Special Interest 3.0" or some nascent form of "direct democracy".

Wright's first reaction to the problem of the people peacefully assembling via online means to petition the government for redress of grievances is that "It would be hard to restore much of the insulation [between constituents and their elected representatives] without tampering with the First Amendment." Well, yeah, but doesn't that undermine his notion that this is somehow incompatible with what the Founding Fathers wanted? Oh, sure, "information technology has stripped away the insulation that physical distance provided back when information couldn’t travel faster than a horse", but didn't that start with the electric telegraph in 1831?

As an alternative to repealing part or all of the First Amendment, Wright suggests that we could lengthen legislative terms so that

more people in Congress could spend more time worrying about something other than getting re-elected next year, and this could leave them productively indifferent to the most recently manufactured views of their constituents.

Well, we could expand the terms for Members of Congress to six years, because with six year terms surely an elected representative wouldn't be too concerned about... oh, yeah, the problem with healthcare reform lies in the Senate, which already has six year terms. Wright also suggests term limits, something that has had what I see as a pretty catastrophic effect on state legislatures - a lot more newbies in the state houses, politicians just getting up to speed when they're term limited out, politicians on their way out the door happy to pass the buck to the next group, politicians more concerned with positioning themselves for their next job than with doing a good job in their elected positions.... Wright thinks a Member of Congress, term limited out and hoping to grab the seat of a term limited Senator, is going to be deaf to the wishes of his constituents? Or maybe it's that he anticipates most of them going to work for the lobbying firms that serve "Special Interest 1.0", which would appear to be just fine with him.

Wright adds,

Absent such reform, it seems that the only time you can get big things done is amid a sense of national peril. Then you can pass stimulus bills and invade countries (the big résumé items of Obama and his predecessor). In more normal times, getting big things done means walking through a very large and dense minefield.

So... how does this differ from the rest of the nation's history? It took a civil war to end slavery. It took another century and a serious movement of civil disobedience to bring about the Civil Rights Era. It took a war and a depression to bring about the New Deal. Just when did we enjoy the glory days during which big things got done without a sense of national peril? I do agree that our government should be able to operate more responsibly, and that waiting for a crisis before acting can lead to suboptimal outcomes... such as a civil war... but that seems to be a structural problem not so much of our system of government as of the human psyche.

Healthcare reform failed under the Clinton Administration, something Wright can't reasonably attempt to pin on "Special Interest 3.0". But gosh - since he brought up Betsy McCaughey's death panels, perhaps it's worth remembering who was there, spreading lies that helped bring down the reform bill, much to the pleasure of Newt Gingrich? "Special Interest 3.0", nothing. This is déjà vu all over again.

Meanwhile, I think that if politicians would refrain from speaking dismissively of "bloggers" (or other means by which constituents make their wishes known), would focus on the issues and the formation of sound policy, and would have the backbone to call out people who are lying about major policy initiatives - even of those people are in their own party - Wright would quickly discover that many of the problems he perceives don't even exist. And seriously, does Wright think it's better that monied interests have unimpeded access to cut back room deals with politicians than it is for constituents at large to challenge that status quo? (What about Robert Reich's proposal to clean up "Special Interest 1.0", a major culprit in our nation's problems for generations?)

Sacramental... Beer?

It's so hard to keep young people interested in religion these days. Got any ideas?

Legislation allowing underage Jews to drink beer during religious ceremonies has sparked widespread support in the Arkansas Legislature and puzzlement, even laughter, in the Jewish community.

The official explanation:

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dan Greenberg, R-Little Rock, says he drafted the bill on behalf of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi so that underage Arkansas Jewish youths would be able to drink at religious dinners and other events during the first nine days of the Jewish month of Av....

The legislation, primarily, would allow underage Jews to drink beer at post-circumcision celebrations on those rare occasions when a baby boy is born before the Ninth of Av, Ciment said.

Next up, hard liquor?

Some rabbis allow the havdalah to be performed with whiskey. Others accept rum.

And some, I'm sure, offer an open bar. Needless to say, there are some spoilsports out there:

“It’s possible to use grape juice. It’s possible to use milk,” said Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University near Boston.

“I am familiar with no Jewish law that requires drinking of beer at any time,” he said.

The bill's sponsor responds,

...I do think it’s quite important to make sure that state government never interferes with traditional religious practices.

(Yet for some reason I'm not holding my breath, waiting for his "religious freedom" bill to legalize polygamy and ritual sacrifice.)

Wishful Thinking?

Today's Times writes, in relation to Judith Miller,

As of today, Judith Miller has spent more time behind bars to protect privileged information than any other New York Times journalist.

Except Miller appealed her case all the way up to the Supreme Court, and has been given the unequivocal answer that the communication at issue is not privileged. The Times can argue that she is taking a stand in defiance of the law as a matter of principle, and it can continue to lobby Congress to create a privilege, but it should not bandy about claims of privilege where it surely by now understand that none exists.

Shielding the Press

The New York Times today editorializes in favor of a federal "shield law" to allow reporters to "guarantee that journalists are allowed the right to protect the names of confidential sources in most circumstances." And certainly, the public interest can be advanced by having certain information made public, where the source might not be forthcoming if not for the shield.

Here's my challenge, though, for the New York Times: Compose a "shield law" that you believe would serve the interests of reporters and the public, without encouraging criminality or jeopardizing national security. Then ask yourself two questions: First, would Judith Miller's source be protected under the law? And second, if not (or if a judge found that she was not shielded), would she testify? Because if, at the end of the day, we end up back where we started, what's the point of the exercise?

To the extent that the New York Times endorses language that permits forced disclosure "to prevent imminent and actual harm to the national security", is the naming of a covert CIA operative, and associated identification of her nominal "employer" as a CIA operation, not an actual harm to the national security? Or is the Times only concerned about the effect on national security after the leak is published, and not the harm to national security that results from the leak itself? Somebody leaks battle plans - but you can only force the identification of the leak before the battle is lost. And if the battle is won despite the leak, hey - no harm, no foul, right? That would be a curious rule.

In bringing up, "privileges already granted to doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and spouses," it is important to note that the privilege requested by reporters is of a different nature. When somebody tries to pierce the attorney-client privilege, for example, they do so with knowledge of the identity of the holder of the privilege. That is, the client. The same is true with regard to medical privilege and spousal privilege - the identity of the patient or spouse is known. States as a rule hold that a client's identity is not covered by attorney-client privilege, just the confidential communication. And it should go without saying, for any of those privileges, that if the holder of the privilege instructs the lawyer, doctor, or spouse to broadcast the confidential communication to others, a later attempt to assert the privilege would fail.

That is to say, traditional privilege protects the information, even though the source is known. Reporters claim a privilege which protects the source, even when the information is known. The effect of such a privilege, and its public policy implications, are quite different than those implicated by other forms of privilege.

The Bush Administration hates leaks, except when it is orchestrating them, and is thus adamant that there should be no law protecting reporters, even as it is quietly rejoicing in Miller's decision not to reveal or, probably more accurately, confirm the identity of her sources. Would you fall on your sword for somebody who is simultaneously knifing you in the back?

Bloggers' Rights

CJR Daily today observes,

Say that blogs are granted the same protections as news organizations. What is to stop, say, corporations or trade unions from setting up stealth blogs to promote their agenda, while collecting funds from the public or to spend on ads to promote their own interested point of view?

One might ask, what's to stop corporations, religious organizations, or chambers of commerce from setting up stealth news organizations to promote their agenda?

Many partisan bloggers are little more than political activists, and as activists they raise funds for their own pet political causes, something reporters don't -- and can't -- do. In this, they should be included under campaign finance laws.

But "reporters" apparently can obtain secret, lucrative contracts from the government to push a particular story or perspective. News organizations can carelessly (or perhaps intentionally) run "video news releases" which are disguised as news coverage. Mainstream "reporters" and columnists can act as willing conduits for dubious (or false) stories to advance their careers and curry favor with politicians. Reporters at press conferences for important subjects can act like sheep, afraid of being culled from the herd if they ask tough questions.

In the end, it's a complicated issue, and both sides have salient points.

True. But who's the pot and who's the kettle?

Word Games

William Raspberry, addressing the First Amendment, tells us:

"There's nothing in common sense - and certainly nothing in the First Amendment - that requires government hostility to publicly expressed religion, which is where the requirement that government be 'secular' takes you," he says. "I think it's better to say 'temporal' rather than secular. Temporal means the here and now, without reference to the hereafter. Our government was designed to be temporal, but you have only to look at the words and actions of the Founders to understand that they had no interest in the sort of secularity the court now seeks to enforce."

But it's not just in impossibly arcane Supreme Court decisions that "secular" plays us false, says Hasson. "It gets us in needless trouble internationally as well. The Arabic word for secular is almehni, meaning godless. So when Muslim fundamentalists hear us talk about secular government, they think we mean, quite literally, a godless government. Temporal translates into another Arabic word entirely, dunyawi, or worldly.

Hasson is not just playing word games.

Well, yes. He is.

Take for example somebody who argued that the Elbonian word for "Godly" is "ignorant". While it is fair to respond that the Elbonians, a fictional ethnicity featured in Dilbert cartoons, are famous for their ability to get pretty much everything wrong, the better response would be to point out that if "ignorant" is the best word in the Elbonian language to describe the concept of Godliness, the Elbonians in fact have no word for Godliness. Further, as we are not applying the inaccurate Elbonian definition of Godliness within our nation - we use the English language, after all - the deficits of the Elbonian language have no relevance to our domestic debates.

If I were to add to this that the Elbonians translate the word "Cotton Candy" as "Worldly", you would probably find it ridiculous if I were to suggest that we call our government a "Cotton Candy government" in order to convey a more accurate meaning to the Elbonians. "But," you would assert, "Cotton candy in English means 'a candy made by spinning sugar that has been boiled to a high temperature'." And you would be right. While "temporal" is a closer match to "worldly" than is "cotton candy", it still carries a different meaning (particularly in its most common uses) than worldly.

This ultimately raises some questions for Mr. Hasson: What is the Arabic word for "worldly"? Because if it is something other than "dunyawi", which you say means "worldly", we're engaging in some pretty peculiar contortions. And if "worldly" (which you suggest to be a word which properly conveys the nature of our government to other cultures) translates to "dunyawi", why do you prefer the term "temporal" to the term "wordly"? Perhaps, to confuse the English language debate?

Sidestepping? That's an understatement....

The Supreme Court "sidesteps" the Pledge question? Year after year after year, thousands of people petition the United States Supreme Court for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court entertains a very small number of cases, ostensibly those which raise the most significant issues of constitutional law:

Every year, the Supreme Court hears about 100 cases (in recent years, that number has dwindled down to about 90 cases per year). This is only a small fraction of the many cases (about 7,000 a year) filed before it.

The issue of "standing", whether or not an individual has the right to commence a particular lawsuit, is a pedestrian issue.

So when the United States Supreme Court takes a matter that many of the people in this nation perceive as of great import - whether they detest or support the lower court decision - and then vacates it on a technicality without addressing the constitutional questions, there is good cause to ask, "What's really going on?" Were they really convinced by the "lack of standing" argument - or did they regret taking a contentious case, and scramble for any way out which would let them avoid upholding an unpopular lower court ruling?