One of the interesting aspects of this election season is intense focus on the scope of Article Six’s prohibition of a “religious test” for candidates. The full text reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The scope of Article Six, however, is highly debatable. Some scholars contend that it is broad enough to include reasons for voting for a particular individual (that is, the “religious test” includes the ballot box). Paul Horwitz, however, has argued judiciously (and persuasively) that the scope of Article Six is much more narrow. He writes:

The Clause applies to a narrow set of circumstances in which government requires a nominee formally to swear his allegiance to particular faiths or faith propositions, or to disavow that allegiance. It does nothing more. Thus, nothing in the Religious Test Clause ultimately prevents the use of religion in the kinds of statements and actions by various politicians and others that we have seen in the past few years in the context of judicial nominations, whether in opposition to or in support of those nominations. However treacherous the waters we must navigate when we invoke religion in the course of judicial nominations, the Religious Test Clause offers us no beacon.

Horwitz summarizes his argument for this interpretation here. To be blunt, I find the argument decisive. Not only do the historical conditions point to his interpretation, but as Horwitz points out in his paper, the grammar of the entire clause suggests that “religious test” is conceptually dependant upon the “oath or affirmation” to uphold the constitution. In addition, the restriction of the “religious test” exclusion to the Federal level further reinforces the contrast with the “oath or affirmation” that is required at every level of government.

Ironically, Horowitz’s argument implies that conservatives–who care about “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution–are acting “unconservatively” in their use of Article Six to prohibit questions of a religious nature for federal candidates (including Supreme Court justices).

Horowitz points to several conservative organizations (Becket Fund, FRC, etc) who did exactly that during John Roberts’ confirmation hearings. As Horowitz writes:

The Clause prevents the formal imposition of true religious tests as a precondition to the assumption of public office. But it does not, as a matter of text, history, or sound policy, prohibit inquiries about a nominee’s beliefs on issues likely to come before the federal courts, or inquiries into his faith as a means of ferreting out those views. Nor, certainly, does it prohibit inquiries designed to smoke out whether a nominee with deeply held beliefs – religious or otherwise – can nevertheless faithfully apply the applicable law. None of these inquiries amount to a requirement that a nominee literally pledge his allegiance to a particular faith or a particular set of religious doctrines. It is true that such inquiries would require the nominee to answer under oath, and a central feature of the Religious Test Clause is its relationship to oaths. But such inquiries would not amount to a literal requirement that a nominee subscribe to a particular faith or faith tenet, under penalty of extratemporal punishment.

Horowitz is careful to point out that the absence of a prohibition in the Constitution does not entail that people should ask such questions. Voting for someone for religious reasons is not unconstitutional–the double negative is intentional–but it may not be appropriate.

Ultimately, we should care not only about our conclusions, but our roads to those conclusions. Conservatives would do well to remain consistent and interpret Article Six according to our preferred method of interpretation–originalism–even if it means eliminating one of our favorite arguments for helping our preferred justices reach the bench.

Mitt Romney’s credentials as a social conservative took another blow on his recent “Meet the Press” appearance. And social conservatives are noticing.

According to this news report, Romney supports something like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) at the state level (precisely, he said the bill “makes sense” at that level). ENDA, which is currently making it’s way through Congress, would prohibit all employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The bill (rightly) has conservatives worried that religious organizations who are opposed to homosexuality may be required to hire homosexuals. All the social conservative heavyweights oppose the bill:

The federal ENDA bill is opposed by Christian heavyweights such as Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. of High Impact Leadership Coalition, Alan Sears of Alliance Defense Fund, the Rev. Rick Scarborough of Vision America, and Colin A. Hanna of Let Freedom Ring.

Mitt Romney’s position that the idea “makes sense” for states is worrisome. If federalism is the only reason Mitt Romney isn’t in favor of ENDA, then he’s clearly not in tune with the majority of the social conservative movement on the issue of homosexuality.

There is some force to the argument that if Romney supports liberal policies like this one at a state level, his credibility is damaged at a federal level. For all his understanding of the challenges abroad, it makes me wonder whether Mitt Romney understands the danger of losing their ability to govern themselves religious groups here at home face.  That would be surprising, given his knowledge of the Catholic Charities of Massachussetts decision to end their adoption services in light of state laws requiring them to place children with homosexual parents (a requirement contradicted by the Magesterium of the Church).

A few months ago, I claimed that modesty is an essential virtue for bioethicists, but was unsure what shape such modesty might take:

What does modesty look like in bioethics?  I’m not sure, but the weight of such decisions demands a restraint greater than the medical and scientific communities seem to be demonstrating.

Jay Lefkowitz, who navigated the deliberations about George Bush’s stem-cell policy, has penned a fascinating account of the judicious and careful deliberation Bush went through in shaping his now-vindicated policy.*

Now that the debate seems to be over, what can we say about Bush’s policy and the long months it took for him to devise it? I think it is fair to look upon it as a model of how to deal with the complicated scientific and ethical dilemmas that will continue to confront political leaders in the age of biotechnology. Bush refused to accept the notion that we must choose between medical research and the principle of the dignity of life at every stage. He sought both to advance biomedical science and at the same time to respect the sanctity of human life. In the end he came to a moderate, balanced decision that drew a prudent and principled line. The decision was both informed and reasoned, based on lengthy study and consultation with people of widely divergent viewpoints. It was consciously not guided by public-opinion polls.

Unfortunately, Lefkowitz notes that Bush did not display such prudence on every controversial policy decision.  Yet when students of history evaluate the Bush presidency, his position on stem-cells ought to be included among the many times George Bush adhered to his principles despite significant political cost.

(HT:  Justin Taylor)

*I do not want to imply that I approve of the destruction of any human embryos, which Bush’s policy allowed for.  As a matter of ethics, I find the practice immoral.  As a matter of policy, Bush’s restrained approach has been successful.

The Great Debaters, Denzel Washington’s second foray into directing, recounts the historic run by Wiley College’s–an all black school in East Texas–Debate Team, which eventually defeated the University of Southern California (not Harvard, as the movie depicts it).

The unlikely and remarkable story is so improbable that any sympathetic portrayal would be in danger of moving forward only on schlockiness and cliches.  Though he treats the debate as a sports event, for the most part Washington manages to avoid that danger.  In the final scene, he deploys music sparingly, trusting his actors to deliver lines in compelling enough fashion to heighten the suspense and gravitas.  And for the most part, the actors deliver.

There is much to appreciate in Washington’s movie.  Washington’s portrayal of the racism of the deep south is as disturbing as his depiction of his subjects–the debate team–is inspiring.  Yet it is also interesting to note that the winning position in the various debates is always sympathetic to what might be described as the more “liberal” position.  The fact that the arguments occur in the context of race makes it additionally difficult for the audience to disagree with the big-government presumptions which undergird the arguments.
Despite that unfortunate asoect*, The Great Debaters is a very well-made film that is both entertaining and stimulating.  I had some questions going in about how well the debate format would transfer to film, but Washington handles the oratory well.  The arguments presented in the debates are hardly perfect, but yet contain enough substance to raise excellent questions about race relations and the process of integration in America.

The Great Debaters is by no means a great film.  But it is a worthy choice for families without young children this holiday season.

*To be clear, I don’t know whether Washington researched the debates to the extent that the positions presented are themselves historical.  I am open to that, but presuming here that they are fictionalized according to Washington’s direction.

We at Mere Orthodoxy have much to be thankful for as we look back at 2007. It has been a year of highlights for us, and it will be difficult to replicate.

We are extremely thankful for the opportunities that blogging has afforded us, especially for the helpful and stimulating exchanges we have had with you, our readers.  The internet is a large place, and you have lots of options for commentary.  As such, we are enormously grateful for your attention and participation here at Mere-O.
Allow us, if you will, to share some of the highlights from 2007:

Including this one, we wrote 402 posts.

We had 760 comments this year. “Sanitizing Darwin” had the most comments with 33.
We had more page views in October ever: 15,433.

However, our most unique visitors ever came in May: 7,623.

We jumped from 12 RSS readers to 62–that’s roughly 500%.

Mostly on the strength of a link from the Huckabee website, this Republican debate wrap-up drew the most traffic this year.

We had first-hand reports from Biola for the hiring of the new president and from FRC’s Washington Briefing, which turned out to be one of the most significant moments in politics this year.

In my first serious foray into political blogging and thinking, I endorsed Mike Huckabee with Justin Taylor and Joe Carter.

Comings and goings: We said goodbye to two writers this year and said “hello” to our Starving Intern, which we hope will become a full-time position here at Mere-O.

New ventures: We instituted and ran the first “Mere-O Reader’s Survey,” which was enormously helpful.  We will continue to ask for feedback as we try to improve our blog.
In the series department, we had a number of successful series here at Mere-O this year. Keith has written a number of excellent posts on the process of screenwriting and has written some excellent reflections on beauty.

I blogged through Oliver O’Donovan’s Resurrection and the Moral Order and posted my senior thesis on Pauline anthropology. I also offered several reflections on the Gospel of John and made it most of the way through an exceptionally long series on discussion leading (the interest in which seemed to tail off, so I discontinued it).

Our resident Air Force Officer Tex offered his thoughts on his travels in Jordan and penned a fascinating series on the difference between Islamic and Christian theories of the state and just war (really, this is a must-read series).

In all, it’s clear that this has been a productive year here at Mere-O.  While the intangibles of blogging are difficult to quantify, the numbers indicate that we have done a better job of fostering dialogue than in year’s past, which is one of our main goals.

I won’t give anything away, but I will say that we want to continue to improve Mere-O throughout 2008.  And as we improve our writing and thinking, we hope that you will continue to read regularly and contribute to the conversation.  As always, let us know what you think we can do to improve by emailing us at mereorthodoxy dot com at gmail dot com.

Occasionally, movies manage to be entertaining in spite of themselves.  In these instances, solid acting, excellent special effects, and competent directing work to overcome what would otherwise be a fatal flaw:  no plot.

I Am Legend, Will Smith’s newest film, is just such a movie.

The central problem with the film is it’s premise, which makes for an entirely predictable story.  As the last man alive in New York City, Will Smith’s only hope for dramatic action depends upon confronting the unknown “un-men” who come out at night.  It’s as much as any screenwriter could do with that premise–that is, without writing an intensely pscyhological examination of man in isolation.

The weaknesses and predictability of the plot, however, are overcome–as much as they can be–by Francis Lawrence’s direction.  In hiding the cause of New York’s desolation, Lawrence weaves an element of suspense into an otherwise bland story.  He also manages to create several suspenseful and genuinely startling scenes.  Though reminiscent of the horror genre, these moments are an exciting and engaging addition.

And, as usual, Will Smith delivers a worthy performance.  Though he lacks the sardonic touch he has had in other movies, his performance is what we’ve come to expect from him:  sometimes touching, sometimes amusing, but always entertaining.

In all, I Am Legend is a fine film built on a mediocre plot.  While it won’t stand-up under multiple viewings or lofty expectations, it is an enjoyable film to see in the theatres.  If you have the time and money (and can take an intense, adult film), I Am Legend is a good choice.

This Sunday marks the fourth Sunday of the Advent season. Though historically neglected by many evangelicals, Advent has made a resurgence in recent years. To that end, we are going to be offering Advent meditations throughout the season here at Mere-O. They will appear the Friday before each Sunday.

“Look!” The voices across the ages and across the great chain of being cry out to all who have ears and eyes to notice the mighty event that will soon send its effects rippling across the Milky Way and on into the furthest reaches of the cosmos. From the beginning of recorded history there have been witnesses pointing towards Christmas, calling upon mankind to prepare for the coming of God among men.

The first witness is the indubitable word of God, saying, “And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” (more…)

Today, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline raises the concern that Huckabee seems to want a free pass on the issues because of his status as an evangelical.  Paul writes:

Huckabee seems to believe he deserves a “pass” by virtue of his status as an evangelical and the fact that evangelicals have supported Republicans. That’s a dangerous mind set. Other serious Republican candidates have no difficulty understanding that resistance to them flows not from prejudice or elitism but from legitimate policy differences.

Mirengoff is right.  Huckabee shouldn’t get a pass on the issues.  I haven’t had the time of late to address the various and sundry attacks against him, as they have been fast and furious.*  But serious and substantial criticism of him needs to happen.

The problem, however, that Huckabee is responding to and that Mirgenoff ignores is the nature of the attacks against Huckabee.  Rod Dreher penned an excellent analysis of the problem today.  I quote at length:

It’s funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn’t see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented, even though as Ross points out, Giuliani hasn’t exactly been deep on policy (I had to research Giuliani for our Dallas Morning News editorial board debate on which candidate to endorse, and I was genuinely startled by how vague he was on many things). I think it’s fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.

But lo, it turns out that the candidate who’s caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It’s not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years?

I don’t want to overdo this. I think it’s perfectly fine to be worried about Huckabee’s vagueness, and his unpreparedness. I’m worried about these things too, which is a big reason why I can’t say I’d vote for him (though honestly, any Republican who finds himself worked up over Huckabee’s lack of knowledge about foreign affairs, say, should ask himself if he felt the same way about Gov. Bush in 1999 and 2000, and if not, why not). Still, it’s hard to shake the belief that the real problem with Mike Huckabee, as far as the establishment is concerned, is that he’s not clubbable.

Huckabee’s rise has prompted a more careful analysis not only of the role of religion in politics, but also of the place of social conservatives within the Republican party.  As evangelical political reflection and involvement increases and improves, we will presumably become increasingly more aware of the sort of double standards that Dreher points out.

This is not to say that evangelicals will leave the Republican party.  Until Democrats have a viable pro-life candidate, there’s no place for social conservatives to turn.  But that doesn’t mean social conservatives will continue to march within the party as they have always done.  Rudy Giuliani’s ascension to the top spot was a warning sign–the tone of the attacks on Mike Huckabee have only been further confirmation that social conservatives are second-class citizens within the Republican party.
*Though I was disappointed in his Foreign Policy article, I agree with Dreher that his positions are hardly a disqualification to be president.  What’s more, despite the critiques of the piece, there are a lot of smart Romney supporters who agree with his position that the Bush administration has been “arrogant” in his approach to foreign policy.

This is a short essay on Jonathan Edwards essay The Beauty of the World, written this month by one of my high school students. I found it to be compelling in its simplicity and insight. Reprinted with the permission of the author, for your pleasure and consideration…

—

What is beauty? Jonathan Edwards defines beauty as the combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to look at, listen to, touch, smell, or taste. What is the difference between beauty being objective or subjective? Objective usually connotes having to do with facts about the physical, material world. Subjective means “in the mind of a subject”.

It’s pretty rare that I get wind of breaking news before other people do. However, twenty-seven Missouri politicians are about to announce their support of Mike Huckabee.

While there has been a lot of questions about whether he would be able to translate his momentum into victories in the caucuses, this sort of endorsement will give him an enormous boost in a state in which he has recently started to lead.

This is from the press release:

“Governor Huckabee represents the true conservative principals that many Missouri Republicans value,” Missouri State Senator and Chair of Huckabee’s Missouri organization Delbert Scott said. “When we met with the Governor last week, his sincerity really stood out.”

Twenty-three state representatives and four state senators are publicly supporting Huckabee. “Governor Huckabee’s recent surge in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida has been reflected here in Missouri,” Missouri State Representative Brian Yates said. “In the past two weeks, we have added many new endorsements from all areas of the state.”

Here are the names of those endorsing him:

Missouri Elected Officials Endorsing Mike Huckabee for President
Representative Brian Baker
Senator Matt Bartle
Representative Mark Bruns
Representative Wayne Cooper
Representative Ed Emery
Representative Barney Fisher
Representative Walt Franz
Representative Steve Hunter
Representative Will Kraus
Senator Brad Lager
Representative Scott Lipke
Representative Bob May
Representative Brian Munzlinger
Representative Bob Nance
Representative Brian Nieves
Representative Darrell Pollack
Senator Chuck Purgason
Representative Don Ruzicka
Representative David Sater
Representative Rodney Schad
Representative Charlie Schlottach
Senator Delbert Scott
Representative Jason Smith
Representative Mike Sutherland
Representative Don Wells
Representative Dennis Wood
Representative Brian Yates

Missourians can join the campaign here.

One of the more interesting developments in the political race this week was the increasing discussion about the tone of the attacks on Mike Huckabee.

While the candidates have managed to put out some substantial criticisms of Huckabee, the tone of many of the conservative intellectuals has been, well, over the top. It culminated in this screed by Lisa Schiffren, which Ross Douthat aptly characterized as “Go Back to Dogpatch, You Stupid Hillbilly!” Ironically, Schiffren’s post validated Joe Carter’s point that National Review become dominated by what he terms “Manhattan conservatives.” Rod Dreher chimed in with a broader analysis of the problem, and Erick at Redstate offered this defense of Huckabee:

I don’t want to defend Mike Huckabee. He’s not my candidate. I don’t yet see any major reasons to trust him on fiscal issues (though he did say he wants to kill the corporate income tax). But it’s a sad day in the conservative movement when the conservative intelligentsia has sustained harsher words for a socially conservative Governor than a serial adulterer who has said this year that the government should provide assistance to poor women wanting abortions.

There is lots to disagree with Huckabee on. But the tenor of the attacks against him has been off-putting to this young social conservative. It has made me wonder whether the palpable loathing of Huckabee by many conservatives stems less from his populist rhetoric and alleged “naivety” on foreign policy and more from a distaste of any candidate being overt in his religious dedication. Being a Christian in politics is fine, as long as you are the “right sort of Christian.”

As John from Verum Serum put it, “This is the enlightenment approach to faith, i.e. religion is fine so long as it doesn’t actually matter. And that’s especially the case when it comes to politics. I don’t care if you believe in God just keep it to yourself. And please, please don’t talk about it in an election.”

Of course, if you happen to mention a specific God that you might worship, like Jesus Christ, the politicos with their post-modern practices (no different in this respect from the identity politics of evangelicals) will deconstruct your motives to pandering to those evangelicals, rather than acknowledging the facts that you simply believe in Him and aren’t afraid to say “Merry Christmas.”

The ferocity of the attacks on Huckabee has risked alienating young voters like myself. Hugh recently wrote that evangelicals are not easily led, or subject to dog whistles,” And in this, he is exactly right. But the story of this campaign is that evangelicals will not follow the dog whistles of the mainstream GOP, which has rejected “compassionate conservatism” wholesale. Our position in the GOP is less secure than it was four years ago, as evidenced by Giuliani’s position as frontrunner for the bulk of this campaign.

If anything, Huckabee’s rise is indicative of evangelicals’ refusal to let the mainstream GOP take them for granted any longer. The pundits said that Huckabee wasn’t a player–evangelicals put him into the top tier. The pundits explained that Huckabee wasn’t electable. Evangelicals have made him electable.

While evangelicals shouldn’t vote for someone out of spite for his critics, the distaste for Huckabee from the Republican intelligentsia raise serious questions about our alliance with the GOP. At the same time, the GOP needs Huckabee’s supporters, many of whom have the time and energy to do the little things that win elections, which makes it’s vitriol against the Second Man from Hope all the more disappointing and perplexing.

Update: John from Article Six asks the pertinent question: “Where are they going to go? This is so reminiscent of the late ’60’s and early ’70’s to me. Everybody wanted to drop out, and suddenly found they were nowhere. Politics is the science of the possible, not the ideal.”

The point of my post is that the alliance with the GOP is increasingly fragile. The GOP is losing ground among younger voters, and it’s voting block is growing smaller, which means it needs all the votes it can get. To repeatedly demean evangelicals by asserting that they only support Huckabee because of religion (while ignoring evidence that suggests evangelicals in Iowa have a very favorable view of Mitt Romney) alienates the very people that the GOP seems to need to win elections.

John’s question also presumes the sort of “dog whistle” mentality that the GOP has toward evangelicals. The implication that there is nowhere else evangelicals can go prevents any serious self-reflection on the part of Republicans–self-reflection that the GOP needs a lot right now. The expectation that evangelicals will enthusiastically support the party on the strength of Democrat-hatred alone is additional confirmation of the low view of evangelicals that many pundits seem to have.

If the Democrats fielded a candidate who had a respectable pro-life record and had a moderately reasonable foreign policy, my hunch is that many evangelicals–especially the younger evangelicals–would vote for him.

That said, I haven’t answered John’s question because I don’t have a good answer to it. But the fact that it has come to the point where we are talking about it seems to be problematic in itself.

Part I: Creation ex nihilo
Part II: Scheduling & Research

Part III: Writing a treatment is like writing a short story. It must be complete, interesting, detailed-but-not-too-much, engaging, and must establish the “flow” of the entire screenplay.

The inciting idea for starting a screenplay is either a) a cool premise or setting, b) an interesting character, c) an important and stimulating theme, or d) an interesting plot. If your starting point is d, then you have to create (or discover) characters, themes, and settings to fit your plot. You have the spine; you need to adorn it with organs, muscles, and skin. If you starting point is a b or c, then you have your work cut out for you. You have the idea for an interesting eye, or a compelling person, and you need to invent (or discover) all of the actions that person will take.

We started with a cool premise. We came up with a related theme we liked. Now the plot.

The treatment demands that you translate all ethereal interesting abstractions into a scene-by-scene narrative. Sure the character is going to go through a worldview crisis, but where does he work, at what time in his life are we introduced to him, what seemingly insignificant events eventually culminate in this crisis?

Dizzy and I had our work cut out for us. David Allen once said that “leadership is the ability to turn ‘vague ambiguous stuff’ into action items.” We had a character, a theme, an idea… And we wanted a script. With manful self-will, we simply began. (more…)

The Republicans debated this afternoon.  Whether anyone who isn’t a political wonk watched is an open question (I’ll cease being one any day now………any day!).

Romney looked great, but then, he doesn’t have much to lose in Iowa these days.  Whether he did enough, though, to start his come  back in Iowa remains to be seen.  And the fact that we’re talking about a Romney “comeback” suggests he hasn’t had the best run of things.  Even though he has had his best two weeks of the campaign, Huckabee has a 16% lead in Iowa.  The question isn’t whether Huckabee will win Iowa–the question is by how much.  Anything over 15% destroys Romney’s chances.
As for the other candidates, only Thompson managed to help himself with a gruff and blunt response to a request that candidates raise their hands.  It was a moment reminiscent of his response to Michael Moore, a response which fueled his rise.  It was a moment when we stopped and thought, “What might have been.”

The only other notable fact is that Giuliani seems to be increasingly irrelevant to this campaign.  The news the last two weeks has been all Romney and Huckabee, which makes it feel like a two-man race no one ever expected.

Huckabee, however, did what he had to do.  The format helped him avoid any direct confrontations, which means it goes down under the “missed opportunity” category for everyone else.  Of course, Huckabee has been the story all day, and will still be the story tonight.  He apologized to Mitt Romney after the debate for his now-infamous gaffe, and he said his “New Year’s resolution” would be to more carefully monitor everything he says.  As Deacon at Powerline notes, this should put an end to the matter.

In short, even though Romney was probably at his best, Huckabee comes out ahead from this debate.  He has solidified his spot among the front-runners in this campaign, and come January 3rd, will almost certainly verify that position with a win in Iowa.