A guest contributor over at Balkinization referenced an interesting article she was writing on the nature of time, in particular, "wartime." Though I was turned off by some metaphysical sounding things like the "arrow of time" and the like, the overall concept (and its discussion) is worthwhile.
On some basic level, it also seemed basic -- we divide our lives into different "times," and both act and feel differently in relation to them. This is both a result of needing to understand something too big to handle in one chunk as well as a natural response to different experiences. Consider: "well, you cannot judge me when I did that too harshly, I was in a lousy mood." This might be deemed "lousy mood time" with its own rules.
One response noted that the Constitution has one set of rules for all time. This is untrue as a specific matter -- the Third Amendment specifically separates "peace" and "war." Congress has "war powers" that necessarily affect its "proper" behavior, which touches upon any number of liberties and powers. It is also untrue as a general matter. What is "unreasonable" in one context might not be in wartime. But, the response is true in a general sort of way. These things after all are part of the Constitution as a whole. The "law" is not silent during war:
Thus, the war power of the Federal Government is not created by the emergency of war, but it is a power given to meet that emergency. It is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme cooperative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties
No, this is not from a recent ruling. It is from 1934. One way we divide our lives is "religion." When reading about the Iowan ruling on same sex marriage and related topics, you sometimes read comments about people upset that "religion" is tainting our discourse. Some say that they reject "religion" as absurd. This is somewhat ironic in that people who define "marriage" broadly define "religion" narrowly, in a traditional fashion. Unfortunate and the road to confusion. Limitations aside, Wikipedia can be useful as dictionaries in this area:
A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.
Likewise, "Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind's ultimate nature and meaning." [As an aside, I found this discussion of a newly published bit of Rawls writings of interest. I say this as someone only tangentially aware of the guy. This is Hilzoy discussing her day job, in a fashion.] IOW, it is a basic human thing, not something limited to closeminded deluded sorts. Conscience is also mixed in here. To cite (along with its surrounding text) a favorite passage of mine:
It is true that the First Amendment speaks of the free exercise of religion, not of the free exercise of conscience or belief. Yet conscience and belief are the main ingredients of First Amendment rights. They are the bedrock of free speech as well as religion. The implied First Amendment right of "conscience" is certainly as high as the "right of association[.]" Some indeed have thought it higher.3 Conscience is often the echo of religious faith. But, as this case illustrates, it may also be the product of travail, meditation, or sudden revelation related to a moral comprehension of the dimensions of a problem, not to a religion in the ordinary sense.
IOW, it is sort of involved in the "penumbra" of the First Amendment in some fashion. Religion, therefore, is not to be left to the conservatives. This is true even if the multiple channels on my satellite dial geared to religious programming all seem to be of that type. How limiting. Today's NYT provides a small signal of relief:
Channel surf around the television landscape, and it’s not hard to find experts earnestly discussing politics or economics or even home decorating. But you’ll rarely encounter anyone talking about spiritual matters, unless it’s a megachurch pastor with an 800 number scrolling across the screen.
"Global Spirit,” a series that begins on Sunday on Link TV (and can be viewed free at linktv.org/globalspirit), is hoping to change that, and to capitalize on what the program’s creators see as a growing interest in spiritual exploration. Each week the show will bring together scholars and other experts from different religious and philosophical backgrounds, not to sell a faith or argue hot-button issues, but to discuss universal themes like forgiveness or the nature of the spiritual journey.
I will try to watch. The split among the Catholics on the Supreme Court (all five of the conservatives are Catholics, but Kennedy has something more of a Brennan approach in various respects) underlines simplistic understanding (and denunciation) of "religion" is not a good way to go. So does many people's interactions with different faith communities in every day life.