Nathan Newman has been writing about the courts, evolution, science, intelligent design, and various things that may well be of interest to Gentle Readers. He has a few points that I think are hard to argue and good to note. First, the use of the courts to protect minorities is in essence anti-democratic, and does not take the place of convincing the majority. In fact, the majority is likely to resent being overruled, and become intransigent, less open to debate the issue. Particularly in expanding those protections (as in desegregation, gay rights, school prayer, and evolution), the progressive agenda is advanced by the courts at the cost of a backlash on the streets and on occasion in the legislatures.\n
I think there’s a lot to that. I am convinced, particularly, by his point that for all of exclusive teaching of natural selection in schools, backed by the courts which most recently banned the idiotic sticker that called natural selection into doubt, it’s clear that the majority do not believe in it. His conclusion is that the court route was the wrong one, and remains the wrong one; he suggests giving in to the creationists and intelligent design folk by saying that natural selection is one theory among others, and then showing students that it is the only theory that accounts for the evidence. He hopes, then, that evolution will succeed on its merits, without the help of the courts. It certainly hasn’t succeeded with their help.\n
The fact that there isn’t much popular support for natural selection means, I think, that it is taught badly. I have a lot to say about that, which perhaps I’ll someday manage to write up intelligibly. At any rate, it’s certainly worth asking why it is that most people reject natural selection, and why, if it is the best theory for the available evidence (as I believe it is), it isn’t a persuasive story. But that’s another matter, related to the first, but not identical with it. The point remains that where Darwin may be a rallying cry for the secularists, the other side have not only their opposition to Darwin but also their opposition to the tyranny of the courts, and can say to the fellow on the street that their position is the tolerant one, the democratic one, and the one that respects all sides. What have we to respond? That Darwin was right? Sure, and then what do we say? That even if they don’t believe that Darwin was right, they should still do what we say because Darwin was right. Right? No, I don’t see that getting many votes.\n
My problem, though, is that although I agree that, for instance, it would be better to fight out gay marriage in the legislatures, and that an eventual win there is far more likely to accompany a major cultural shift that would mean de facto<\/I> in addition to de jure<\/I> equality. But what do you tell the people who are denied the right to marry today? What do you tell the people who married in Massachusetts this summer and fall, who gained that protection from the courts, against public opinion? Should they have waited? Who gets to make that choice? I can’t do it. I can’t tell them that the long run is more important, and that they should direct their energy towards a plan that is less likely to get them relief, but more likely to build a better world. That is, I can tell them that, and I can try to persuade them to go along with it, but I want that other choice to be open to them.\n
Similarly, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that my Perfect Reader will go to a school that teaches that natural selection is an open question among scientists who have studied the matter, even if at the same time we are slowly winning the war of opinions. If it comes to it, will I be willing to forgo the slim chance I have of immediate relief from the courts, because it would be bad for The Cause? Now take the abortion issue, where those who support abortion rights depend entirely on the courts. Can we tell a poor sap in Virginia that we understand that she’ll have to drive to Delaware for an abortion, and possibly have to do so in secret and at tremendous expense, but that she can take comfort in the Party’s increased poll numbers, and that soon we may well have majorities in Maryland, and very likely in ten years we’ll get the US House back? On the other hand, can we tell her that she can have the abortion now, in relative safety and convenience, but that the cost of keeping that choice open is that her daughter may well have that choice closed to her?\n
The point of progressive use of the courts was that they were likelier than legislatures to support minorities against the will of majorities. In a way, we clearly failed to persuade the populace that protecting the minority was their job, too; we clearly need to work harder at that. It’s hard, as it’s easier to make the case to the mass for specifics (that it’s wrong to keep people with dark skins out of certain restaurants and hotels), but easier to make the case to a judge for generalities (that it’s wrong to have even ‘voluntary’ spoken prayer in schools, as there may well be somebody for whom that presents a choice that burdens them far more than others, thus establishing preferred status for those who pray ‘correctly’). I can’t imagine a progressive movement having the resources to fight all the specifics in legislatures and opinion polls, and I can’t (yet) imagine having the rhetorical skill to fight the general. But that, after all, is what I’m looking for.\n
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.\n<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nathan Newman has been writing about the courts, evolution, science, intelligent design, and various things that may well be of interest to Gentle Readers. He has a few points that I think are hard to argue and good to note….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[201],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-navel-gazing"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2583"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2583\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17273,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2583\/revisions\/17273"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}