Religious Freedom and Human Rights

In previous posts, I have written about the virtues of religious freedom ("A Case for Religious Freedom," "Religious Freedom and Religious Violence"). Religious freedom is positively associated with political freedom, freedom of the press, gender empowerment, and longevity of democracy, while religious restrictions are positively associated with religious persecution and violence.

Here (i.e., below) is a TEDx Talk ("The Number of Religious Freedom") on the state of religious freedom around the world by Brian Grim, PhD, the Director of Cross-National Data and Senior Researcher in Religion and World Affairs at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington, D.C. He is also the co-author of "The Price of Freedom Denied" with Roger Finke. LIke all TED talks, it is just under 20 minutes long.

As an interesting aside, this TEDx Talk was held at a location along the Via della Conciliazione (i.e., the Road of the Conciliation), which is a street approximately 500 meters (1,600 ft) in length that connects the Vatican and the center of Rome. In other words, the conference was held in Vatican City, but from what I've heard, the powers that be among the TEDx community thought it would be unpopular to say they were holding a TEDx event at the Vatican. This is because TED events tend to attract a disproportionate share of the irreligious or the "spiritual but not religious" crowd.

The Supreme Court and the Ministerial Exemption

In January of 2012, the Supreme Court issued a significant religious liberty decision, ruling that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.  This was the first time that the Supreme Court had recognized the “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws although appellate courts (e.g., 6th circuit, 9th circuit, etc.) have recognized it for approximately 40 years. What it means is that Christian churches can't be forced to hire non-Christians as pastors, Catholic parishes don't have to hire female priests, Jews can dismiss rabbis if they (morally) step out of line, and so on.

The case before the Supreme Court, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was brought by Cheryl Perich, who had been a teacher at a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod school in Redford, Mich.  Ms. Perich said she was fired for suing the school for employment discrimination, something (i.e., suing) the Missouri-Synod forbids among church members. That is, she was fired for violating religious doctrine by pursuing litigation rather than trying to resolve her dispute within the church through Church-sanctioned reconciliation processes. The issue was whether Perich was considered a minister or not. Although she taught mostly secular subjects, she also taught religion classes and attended chapel with her class, and (this is probably the most important point), she was a “called” teacher (i.e., a commissioned minister) who had completed religious training and whom the school considered a minister.

As I've noted in previous posts ("The Question Before the Court," "Morality vs. Constitutionality," "Justice Roberts and Obamacare"), the Supreme Court's job is not to decide whether the school acted morally but whether it acted constitutionally, and in this case, the court ruled unanimously (9-0) that it had. The details and implications of this case serve as a touchstone for a very interesting discussion on the most recent Research on Religion podcast ("Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions"). Here's a brief description of the hour-long podcast:

The surprising outcome of the Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC Supreme Court case forms the basis for our discussion of religious liberty and how far the “ministerial exemption” to federal anti-discrimation laws can be carried. Prof. Matthew Franck (Witherspoon Institute) discusses the details of the case, how it wound its way through the court system, and what happened at the Supreme Court. Along the way, Tony learns a great deal of the U.S. legal system. We then put this case in the broader context of religious freedom and labor regulations.

As always, you can listen to the podcast at the Research on Religion website or download it from iTunes.

NFL Draft 2013

The NFL draft has come and (almost) gone, and if you gauged the quality of players by the media attention paid to each round, you'd come away with the sense that first round picks were the most important (the first round had a night all to itself), followed by the second and third, and then the rest. This, of course, makes sense since the draft's logic is that the best players, for the most part, are selected earlier.

However, research conducted by students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute ("Better Value in 2nd-Round Picks") found that there's more value in second-round draft picks than in first-rounders. Analyzing the performance of players selected from 2000 to 2012 found that players selected in the second round had 70 percent of the production of first-round picks at 40 percent of the salary. Their study used two metrics to measure a player's success. The first was Approximate Value, which assigns value to a player's performance during a season. The other was "Appearance Value," which combines games played, games started, and "recognition" (e.g., Pro Bowl selection or other honors). If I am interpreting their findings correctly, what this means is that if you select two players in the second round, you will get 40% more output for fewer dollars than from your first round pick. The moral of the story? Teams should trade their first round picks for multiple picks in the second and (probably) later rounds (Don't forget: Joe Montana was picked in the third round, and Tom Brady was picked in the 6th.)

Their findings are similar to those of others. For example, the economists Case Massey and Richard Thaler found that the "surplus" draft value peaked with picks in the late first round and early second round (they defined surplus value was defined as the expected performance value above which a team could expect by spending an equivalent amount on a veteran free agent). The folks at Freakonomics summarize the Massey and Thaler study quite nicely in the short video, "The Luck of the Draft," which was produced last year (when Andrew Luck was one of the big names). Essentially, what it comes down to is that flipping a coin is sometimes just as reliable as listening to the experts, which is why a team's more likely to choose a winner with multiple picks in the later rounds than a high to medium pick in the first round.

Should the GOP Move to the Political Center?

It's not every day that you hear someone refer to former President George W. Bush as a centrist, but that's what conservative talk-show host, Laura Ingraham, does, and she doesn't mean it as a compliment. Ingraham is one of four political conservatives who participate in the latest Intelligence Squared US debate, "The GOP Must Seize the Center or Die." Joining here in arguing against the motion is Ralph Reed, the founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and the first executive director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Arguing on behalf of the motion is New York Times columnist David Brooks and former the former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, Mickey Edwards.

As with all Intelligence Squared debates, the audience votes both before and after the debate, and the team that changes the most minds wins, which means a team can win a debate without winning a majority of votes. For example, if prior to a debate, 65% of the audience supported the motion, 14% opposed it, and 21% were undecided and after the debate, 65% supported the motion, 28% opposed it, and 7% were undecided, then the team arguing against the motion would be the winners because their share of the votes increased 14% points, while the other team's share didn't increase at all. You can listen to the debate, as well as access transcripts of it, at the Intelligence Squared website ("The GOP Must Seize the Center or Die"). It can also be downloaded from iTunes.

Let's Not Forget About Texas

Last week's Boston Marathon bombing and subsequent manhunt captured the attention of most Americans. Coverage of the bombing and manhunt dominated most print, TV, radio, and Internet outlets for the entire week. What got lost in the coverage, however, was the tragedy that struck two days later in West, Texas, when a fertilizer plant explosion killed 14 people, injured over 200, leveled several houses, demolished a 50-unit apartment building, and damaged a nursing home and a handful of schools.

Of course, the reason why the bombing attracted so much attention is because acts of terror strike fear in the hearts of most people. Indeed, that "is the whole point of terrorism... [it] leverages the psychology of fear to create emotional damage that is disproportionate to its damage in lives and property" (The Better Angels of Our Nature, p. 345). As Steven Pinker and others have noted, each year, more Americans are killed in traffic accidents, homicides, drownings, fires, falls, bee stings, peanut allergies, and lightening strikes than by terrorist attacks. But the emotional damage is real, which is why it elicits a disproportionate share of media coverage and why last week many of us forgot about the people of West, Texas.

Longing for Eden

Steven Pinker's latest book, "The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined," has attracted its share of criticism, but from what I can gather from my unsystematic review of the critiques, most of it has to do with his contention that hunter-gatherer societies were not only more violent than many believe them to have been, but that they were more violent than most (if not all) of today's societies. According to Pinker's calculations (which are summaries of studies by forensic archeologists), approximately 15%-20% of individuals living in hunter-gatherer societies died a violent death at the hands of another individual, whereas in today's world, the percentage is less than one. Put differently, we (e.g., all Americans) are far less likely to die a violent death than did someone two millennia ago.

One reason why this has attracted criticism is because data on hunter-gatherer societies are far and few between (and certainly not random), which makes it difficult to arrive at a definitive conclusion.  One can only evaluate the available evidence and draw as reasonable conclusion as possible. Another reason (and I suspect a more important reason) is that it challenges romantic images of the past held by many on the ideological left. Although secularists often mock conservative Christians for believing in a literal "Garden of Eden," secularists cling to their own versions of the Garden of Eden, due in large part to the philosophical musings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. Indeed as the sociologist Daniel Chirot and psychologist Clark McCauley have noted, the parallels between Marxism and Christianity are striking:

Marxist eschatology actually mimicked Christian doctrine. In the beginning, there was a perfect world with no private property, no classes, no exploitation, and no alienation--the Garden of Eden. Then came sin, the discovery of private property, and the creation of exploiters. Humanity was cast from the Garden to suffer inequality and want. Humans then experimented with a series of modes of production, from the slave, to the feudal, to the capitalist mode, always seeking the solution and not finding it. Finally there came a true prophet with a message of salvation, Karl Marx, who preached the truth of Science. He promised redemption but was not heeded, except by his closest disciples who carried the truth forward. Eventually, however, the proletariat, the carriers of the true faith, will be converted by the religious elect, the leaders of the party, and join to create a more perfect world. A final, terrible revolution will wipe out capitalism, alienation, exploitation, and inequality. After that, history will end because there will be perfection on earth, and the true believers will have been saved ("Why Not Kill Them All," pp. 142-43, emphasis added).

I don't know if it's something we're born with or something we acquire (or maybe a little of both), but it seems that many of us long for a past where all was pure and right and just. Of course, how we define what is pure and right and just differs from person to person, but that doesn't alter the fact that many of us pine for a golden age. And whether we do so in religious or secular terms is beside the point. The fact is that we do, and it apparently makes us resistant to data that may indicate otherwise.

Should the Minimum Wage Be Abolished?

It's been a few months since I've recommended an Intelligence Squared US debate, primarily because while the topics have been interesting, the debaters (at least in my opinion) haven't. Nevertheless, here's a good one: "Abolish the Minimum Wage." It pits well-meaning libertarians and social liberals against one another.  There's far more nuance to this debate than most people would like to admit. For example, although raising the minimum wage will benefit those who are and remain employed, it also raises the labor costs of companies, which could lead them to lay workers off, not hire as many workers as originally planned, or raise their prices (unless you believe that companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, will simply absorb the extra costs without doing anything -- of course, if that were the case, there wouldn't be any need for a minimum wage). Here's a description of the debate (from the Intelligence Squared website):

The first attempt at establishing a national minimum wage, a part of 1933’s sweeping National Industrial Recovery Act, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935. But in 1938, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law a minimum hourly wage of 25 cents—$4.07 in today’s dollars. Three-quarters of a century later, we are still debating the merits of this cornerstone of the New Deal. Do we need government to ensure a decent paycheck, or would low-wage workers and the economy be better off without its intervention?

Like all Intelligence Squared debates, the audience votes both before and after the debate, and the team that changes the most minds wins, which means a team can win a debate without winning a majority of votes. For example, imagine if prior to the debate, 20% of the audience supported the motion being debated, 40% opposed it, and 40% were undecided. If after the debate, 45% of the audience support the motion, and 60% oppose it, then the team arguing on behalf of the motion will win because their share of the votes increased 25% points, while the other team's share increased only 20%.

In theory, this format should correct for the ideological biases of the crowd. However, I've noticed that prior to the debate a large percentage of the audience tends to say that they're undecided, and my sense is that a large percentage of these undecided voters are leaning a particular way, which makes it easier for the team that's arguing that side of the issue to win and why it's fairly easy to predict which side will win before the debate actually begins. That is, because the debates are held in NY, they tend to attract more people on the political left than the political right, and most of the time (not always), the politically "liberal" team wins. Nevertheless, regardless if you agree with the outcome, the debates themselves can be quite informative and fun to listen to. As always, you can listen to the debate at the Intelligence Squared website ("Abolish the Minimum Wage"), as well as access transcripts of the debate.  The debate can also be downloaded from iTunes.

Debating on behalf of the motion are Jason Dunn and Russell Roberts; arguing against are Jared Burnstein and Karen Kornbluh. Here are their biographies (from the Intelligence Squared US):

James A. Dorn is the vice president for academic affairs, editor of the Cato Journal, and director of Cato’s annual monetary conference. His research interests include trade and human rights, economic reform in China, and the future of money. From 1984 to 1990, he served on the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars. He has lectured in Estonia, Germany, Hong Kong, Russia, and Switzerland and has directed international conferences in London, Shanghai, Moscow, and Mexico City. Dorn has been a visiting scholar at the Central European University in Prague and at Fudan University in Shanghai and is currently professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland. He has edited 10 books and his articles have appeared in numerous publications. Dorn holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia.

Russ Roberts is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is the host of EconTalk, a weekly hour-long award-winning podcast. His rap videos (created with filmmaker John Papola) on the ideas of Keynes and Hayek have been viewed over 6 million times on YouTube and subtitled in eleven languages. Roberts blogs (with Don Boudreaux) at Cafe Hayek. His latest web-based educational project is The Numbers Game where he discusses data and charts in annotated videos. Roberts is the author of three works of fiction that teach economic principles and lessons and numerous journal articles. Roberts was a professor of economics at George Mason University from 2003 to 2012. He has also taught at Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Rochester, Stanford University, and UCLA. His PhD is from the University of Chicago.

Jared Bernstein is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. From 2009 to 2011, Bernstein was the chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, and a member of President Obama’s economic team. Bernstein’s areas of expertise include federal and state economic and fiscal policies, income inequality and mobility, trends in employment and earnings, international comparisons, and the analysis of financial and housing markets. Prior to joining the Obama administration, Bernstein was a senior economist and the director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. Between 1995 and 1996, he held the post of deputy chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. He is the author of "Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?" and is an on-air commentator for the cable stations CNBC and MSNBC and hosts jaredbernsteinblog.com.

Karen Kornbluh recently stepped down as US Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development where she negotiated international Internet policymaking principles, launched a new OECD gender initiative, and championed the OECD's transition from the "rich man's club" to a global policy network focused on working with developing countries and emerging economic powers. She previously served as policy director for then-Senator Barack Obama, as deputy chief of staff at the US Treasury Department, and in a number of roles at the Federal Communications Commission including assistant chief of the International Division and Director of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. She has been awarded a number of fellowships including a visiting fellowship at the Center for American Progress and a Markle technology fellowship. She founded the Work and Family Program at the New America Foundation for publications including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.