Is State Gambling Policy “Morality Policy”? Framing Debates Over State Lotteries

The politics of so‐called “morality policies” including same‐sex marriage, abortion, gun control, and gambling have captured the attention of both the public and political scientists in recent years. Many studies have argued that morality policy constitutes a category of public policy that has distinctive characteristics (such as technical simplicity and less amenability to compromise) compared with non‐morality policy. However, in a recent contribution Mucciaroni argues that morality “policy” should instead be viewed primarily as a strategy for framing issues. Drawing on examples from the debate over gay rights, Mucciaroni finds that opponents focus on rational‐instrumental or procedural frames more so than engaging in “morality talk.” In this study, I seek to extend Mucciaroni's analysis to the issue of lottery gambling in the United States. Drawing on data from legislative records in four states, I find that lottery critics mostly avoid private behavior‐based morality arguments. Instead, they criticize government's role in sanctioning lotteries and denounce the negative consequences of gambling. Supporters, meanwhile, emphasize the potential benefits of lottery creation and the importance of allowing the state public a voice on the issue. The results indicate that rational‐instrumental arguments coexist alongside morality talk in state lottery debates, and that private behavior morality frames are on the decline while governmental morality frames are on the rise.     

“What's a Single Man Blathering about? Jesus on Marriage.”

The church throughout its history has laid claim to Jesus’ teaching about marriage. It has dubbed the declared distillations to be the “dominical words on marriage.” The only problem is that historical criticism has left contemporary readers with no certainty about what Jesus actually said; literary critics have destabilised whether Jesus’ words on marriage were ever intended to be transtemporal; textual critics have demonstrated the impossibility of nailing down any fixed teaching and ideological critics have shown the vested interests of scribes in shaping the meaning of the text from the very beginning. Marriage, it seems, is a Rorschach test completely subject to the needs and interests of those who venture into looking at it. Consequently Jesus can relegate marriage to a practice not even worthy of the resurrection, prize it open to multiple spouses whether contemporaneous or sequential, enforce asymmetrical pairings based on gender, and generally fall in with whatever state or church decisions might be. “Dominical words on marriage” proves to be a house built on sand.     

“Wachstum” oder “Revolution”? Ernst Cassirer und die Wissenschaftsgeschichte

“Growth” or “Revolution”? Ernst Cassirer and History of Science. Ernst Cassirer's contributions to history of science have been long time neglected. The aim of this paper is to show the historical and philosophical framework of Cassirer's engagement in this field, starting from his seminal work about the problem of knowledge in science and philosophy of the modern age. Moreover the author suggests that Cassirer's late studies about Galilei and the origins of mathematical science are of some interest in order to comprehend both his commitment to contemporary history of science (from Burtt to Koyré) and his intellectual heritage for our agendas in a post‐Kuhnian era.     

A “Caesarian,”“Augustan,” or “Justinian” Worldview of Theoretical and Quantitative Geography?

An evolving world view of theoretical and quantitative geography is presented using an analogy from the development of the ancient Roman and Byzantine Empires between Julius Caesar in the first century BC to Justinian in the sixth century AD. This is used to set the discussion platform for a series of papers presented by participants from the early days of quantitative revolution in geography and its transformation into a robust and relevant spatial science. Current theoretical and quantitative geography needs to be, first, active in developing new ideas and applications, second, to continue to transform its methodology to be more societally relevant and scientifically robust and, third, to actively engage cultural critiques of these processes.     

WHITHER “WHAT IF” HISTORY?

Richard Evans's new book, Altered Pasts, offers a perceptive but flawed critique of the field of counterfactual history. The author provides a useful historical survey of the field's recent rise to prominence and intelligently analyzes its respective strengths and weaknesses. His overall assessment of the field is quite skeptical, however. Evans cites many reasons for his skepticism, but his overall critique can be summarized in three words: plausibility, politicization, and popularity. Evans faults works of counterfactual history for their frequently implausible narratives, their promotion of political agendas, and their distressing degree of popularity. In advancing his critique, Evans makes many valid observations that call attention to important deficiencies in the field. But his view is a partial one that neglects countervailing evidence and never penetrates to the heart of why the field has left the margins for the mainstream. Evans's study provides a useful introduction to an understudied topic, but further research—ideally of a less partisan nature—is required for us to better understand counterfactual history's increasing appeal.     

The Epistemological Challenge of Higher Education Student Volunteering: “Reproductive” or “Deconstructive” Volunteering?

Abstract: This paper addresses student volunteering as an important socio‐cultural trend which is generally taken for granted and un‐interrogated. We explore tensions inherent in the practice and articulation of higher education student volunteering, via biographical narratives of contrasting student volunteers and employ Rose's (1993, Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge, University of Minnesota Press) theory of “paradoxical space” to unpick and understand these narratives, as this has proven a generative approach to re‐conceptualising students’ engagement with universities and communities. Building on this theoretical approach, we propose a new conceptual framework to analyse students’ learning and understanding of social justice through volunteering. This framework contrasts reproductive altruism, or volunteering which reproduces social inequalities, with a deconstructive form that provides students with resources to recognise and challenge power relations and inequality in society.     

Permission to Stay in “Enemy” Territory?

Muslim scholars writing about the legal situation of Muslims living under non‐Muslim rule during the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries were primarily concerned with whether Muslims should be allowed to live under non‐Muslim rule or whether they should emigrate (or go on hijra) from it. Two ?anbalī legists, Ibn Qudāma (d. 620/1223) and Ibn Mufli? (d. 763/1362), both of whom lived and wrote in Damascus (Ayyūbid and Mamlūk, respectively), address this issue in their legal works (fiqh). Their scholarship, when compared with that of the ?anbalī scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), is instructive, particularly when one considers differences between these scholars’ experiences of non‐Muslim rule. A guiding question is how experience may shape (or fail to shape) a jurist's position on hijra, since the events of the time (the Crusades and, later, the Mongol invasions) forced Muslims living under non‐Muslim control to decide whether they must leave such lands. Loyalty to one's school (taqlīd) appears to have influenced the jurists most in their thinking, but experience shaped how they justified their positions on whether a Muslim must emigrate from lands under non‐Muslim control.     

THE ANTI-POVERTY EFFECT OF IN-KIND TRANSFERS: A “GOOD IDEA” GONE TOO FAR?”*

During the 1970's several policy analysts developed estimates of the effect of in-kind transfers (e.g., Food Stamps and Medicaid) on poverty. Unfortunately, many of these studies have, drastically overstated the antipoverty impact of in-kind transfers, leading some to claim that there are no mart? poor people in America. This article reviews these, studies, provides new evidence on the impact of in-kind benefits on poverty, and concludes that there is still a substantial poverty problem in America today which need be addressed by policymakers.