News Clips: June 2007 Archives

No time for a full post, but the Pope has reversed the changes John Paul II made to centuries-old rules requiring a 2/3s majority to elect a pope. John Paul had ruled that given enough failed ballots, a majority system would be used, but apparently in the conclave it was discovered that cardinals were subverting the voting by holding out for the require number of ballots until they could vote by mere majority.

A couple of encouraging decisions* from the Supreme Court this morning. (My, it was productive.)

One, there is a case where a high school student decided to probe the limits of student free speech and unfurled a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the torch for the winter Olympics passed by. (He wasn't serious about the message; he merely wanted to be provocative. He called it "nonsensical".) He was punished, and sued. The Supreme Court ruled against him. "Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court." This will allow good order to be maintained in schools.

The second ruling pertains to funding faith-based initiatives. This pertains to President Bush's faith-based initiatives program. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued, arguing this violates the Establishment clause. But the Supreme Court overturned that, warning that allowing the suit to go forward would mean allowing "the federal courts to superintend . . the speeches, statements, and myriad daily activities of the President" and his staff. (Note that normally you can't sue the government. A specific exception was granted earlier for some cases, and the plaintiffs wanted that extended to the executive branch.)

Also, "The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said."

So awesome! All and all, a great day for the Supreme Court.

*Link will expire around 7/1.

According to The Times, "The Pope spoke yesterday of the need for 'true' conversions to Catholicism a day after rebuking [outgoing British Prime Minister] Tony Blair ..."

Wow, talk about harsh. Prominent figure converts to Catholicism and pope not only rebukes him personally, but publically questions the authenticity of his conversion.

Would that the pope were as harsh with those who are already Catholics.

Brief update: Yes, Blair is converting to Catholicism, it's official.

Now here's a headline for you. An ostensibly secular self-described liberal Democrat writes a book (The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn) that rejects same-sex marriage, using a similar argument that Catholics would use, viz., that marriage is about procreation of children, not about love or some private matter or what have you. "[M]arriage fundamentally involves sexual intercourse and the affiliation — emotionally, practically and legally — between any child created and both parents." (Technically, I'd disagree; perhaps we could say that marriage is fundamentally about sexual intercourse and in virtually all cases involves sexual intercourse, but obviously we can't say that marriage requires sexual intercourse, since even if you don't accept the Catholic view that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was without sexual intercourse, throughout history many marriages have in fact been without sexual intercourse.) His point is that marriage is a public institution, and that's the role it plays. That is certainly key to marriage, I would agree. Marriage is a public act; the couple act as one in all their legal and public affairs, and serve as a "cell" of society. It's not just a mutual agreement to be sexual partners for an indefinite period of time.

Anyway, it is welcome to hear a non-religious person articulate this argument.

Tony Blair, the outgoing prime minister of Britain, may be converting to Catholicism. Speculation has been swirling for quite some time, and some say he has been deferring his conversion until he leaves office. There has never been a Catholic prime minister of Britain.

UPDATE: Yes, Blair is converting, it's official.

Psychosis or genuine revelation? Or maybe his conscience just got the better of him.

Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani got a rude awakening Tuesday as lightning struck the building and killed his microphone just as he was about to comment on his pro-choice position. "For someone who went to parochial schools all his life," he chuckled, "this is a very frightening thing." It should be!

A federal appeals court ruled* in favor of broadcasters in a court case over broadcast indecency pertaining to profanity. It ruled that inadvertently airing profanity doesn't violate decency standards. It was a stern rebuke to the socially conservative head of the Federal Communications Commission, which had threatened broadcasters with multimillion-dollar fines. The court said the agency had failed to "articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy", sending the FCC back to the drawing board.

Fox Broadcasting made an interesting statement. They said, "Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home." The problem is, if a profanity is unscripted, can it be controlled by these "many parental control technologies"? Surely if you are watching a live baseball game, and some commentator makes an unscripted comment, nothing a parent can do is going to stop that, short of speech recognition circuitry. Which brings me to my next point: Whatever happened to bleeping things out? If there is an "unscripted" profanity in a taped show that is not rated for such profanity, it should be easy to bleep it out. If there is an unscripted profanity in a live show, well — isn't there a ten-second delay precisely for this reason? This is my point: They've been doing this just fine for decades. Why, all of a sudden, is this a difficult problem to solve? And shouldn't broadcasters be properly motivated to serve their listeners and properly censor profanity on shows aired in the family hour that are not rated for that profanity?

The article points out that the FCC has forbidden broadcasted profanities for 30 years. It says that they have turned a deaf ear, however, to unscripted profanities over the years, especially during live broadcasts. In 2004, U2 singer Bono let one rip when he won a Golden Globe award, and ever since then, the FCC has been coming down hard on violations. Networks complained that while they complained about Bono's blunder, nothing happened when the same words were used in Saving Private Ryan. Surely they understand that Saving Private Ryan is R rated and it's expected (and parents can exercise those "parental controls" they are trying to lob responsibility off to), the Golden Globes is not R rated and it is not expected to have profanity. Again, they used to be able to censor this stuff — why not now?

*Link will last about through 6/11/7.

Great headline.

Don't leave Rome without it!

The Vatican should reimburse them, I think.