I would note that I see some cause for hope concerning Harriet Miers and the abortion issue in the New York Times' account of her intervention with the ABA while she was the president of the Texas Bar. The Times indicates that it was the sense of those opposed to the ABA's declaration in support of abortion rights that abortion was a "political" issue. Ms. Miers also "lead" an effort to allow each member of the ABA to vote on the question. Even these stances -- neither of which concerns the precise question of abortion as a right -- give cause for hope, as they tend toward traditional pro-life conclusions: first, that Roe was essentially a political versus legal opinion; and second that Roe is opposed by a clear majority. I'm not asserting an opinion on her appointment, simply offering that there are aspects of her intervention that are promising.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
cause for hope?
More Cause for Cynicism
My cynicism toward the GOP's use of abortion as an election issue is gaining traction. Consider this exchange between President Bush and reporters today:
When he was asked if he had ever talked to Ms. Miers about her views on abortion, the president did not answer directly at first. "I have no litmus test," he said. But after a moment, he said that to the best of his recollection, he had never discussed abortion with her.
Hugh Hewitt defends the nomination with "Wake up people: Do you really think W is going to elevate a friend who doesn't agree with him on the crucial issues of the day just because she's a friend?" Well, apparently President Bush doesn't believe that abortion rights are one of the "crucial issues" of the day. Given her lack of a paper record, how else was he supposed to ascertain her views? Her past opposition to the ABA's pro-choice policy does not mean that she opposes legalized abortion; it could simply mean that she supports pluralism. Even if he wasn't planning on nominating her, what does it say about the centrality of legalized abortion to Bush's worldview that the subject never came up throughout his long and uncommonly close working relationship with Miers?
Note that I am not suggesting that abortion should be the defining issue driving the selection of Supreme Court justices. I am simply pointing out that abortion seemed much more prominent in the campaign rhetoric of President Bush and his surrogates than it does in the decision-making process by which abortion rights could actually be impacted.
Rob
UPDATE: While abortion may not be the only issue that led evangelicals to embrace Bush over Kerry, it was arguably the most widely compelling one. Needless to say, abortion is central to most evangelicals' criteria for the Bush Administration's Supreme Court appointments. Check out the level of expectations over at Evangelical Outpost:
Make no mistake, if Miers is appointed to the bench and refuses to overturn Roe we will have only ourselves to blame. If after spending a quarter of a century in the church, a Christian woman can uphold the most unjust ruling since Dred Scott, then we have failed as a church. If the best we can say about an evangelical is that she “brings donuts” rather than that she brings a passion for justice, then the blood of the innocent will be on our hands. We will have failed to fulfill the calling of the church.
So why do we have this strange feeling in our stomachs about this nomination? Because deep down we know that being a member of a "conservative evangelical church” may make you an evangelical, but it doesn’t make you a disciple.
This level of anguish over legalized abortion stands in stark contrast, in my view, to President Bush's admission that the subject never even came up in his countless conversations with Miers.
Another Liberal Skeptic of Judicial Power
In the New York Times today (free with registration, until they start charging for columnists), Nick Kristof argues that "the main mode for seeking a more liberal agenda, such as permitting gay marriage or barring public displays of the Ten Commandments, should be the democratic process, not the undemocratic courts."
I know, we've heard this before from Mark Tushnet, Jeff Rosen, and other liberal commentators, and then liberals -- and conservatives -- who want a certain result still run right out and try to get the courts to decree it. But it's still worth noting, and applauding, those who raise the argument.
(Not surprisingly, though, Kristof in the short column doesn't distinguish decisions that properly strike down democratically enacted laws from those that do so improperly; instead he lumps them all together under the unhelpful phrase "judicial activism." For example, in arguing that conservative judges are now engaged in activism (because they strike down more congressional laws than liberal judges do), he doesn't even try to distinguish unwarranted conservative constitutional decisions (the 11th Amendment sovereign-immunity project, the equal protection ruling in Bush v. Gore) from warranted ones (the placing of some judicially declared limits on the interstate commerce power).)
Tom
Vocation of the Child?
As a corrective of, supplement to, or foundation for an emergent consensus about the "rights of the child," the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University is sponsoring -- with the material and personal support of the Templeton Foundation -- a study of "The Vocation of the Child." This study, which will form one volume in the Center's massive study of "The Child in Law, Religion, and Society," aims to bring the nature and responsibility of young human beings into historical, philosophical, and theological perspective. The contributors to the project met at Emory late last week for a closed-door session in which thirteen papers were presented in outline. Here are the titles and presenters, in the order of presentation: Marcia Bunge (Valparaiso), "Biblical Perspectives on the Vocation of the Child;" William Harmless S.J. (Creigton), "Christ the Pediatrician: Infant Baptism and Christology in the Pelagian Controversy:" John Coons (Boalt Hall), "The Vocation of the Child;" Charles Glenn (Boston University), "Parental Expression;" James Keenan S.J. (Boston College), "When Does a Child Become a Decision Maker?;" H. David Baer (Texas Lutheran U.), "Mister Rogers on the Work of Childhood;" Patrick Brennan (Villanova), "Maritain on the Child: A Measured Measure;" John Witte Jr., " Calling Reverend Spock: The Vocation of the Child in the Household Manual Tradition;" Charles Reid (St. Thomas, Minnesota), "The Rights of the Child in Mediaeval Law;" George van Grieken F.S.C. (Christian Brothers High School, Sacramento), "The Vocation of the Child in Lasallian Pedagogy;" Vigen Guroian, "The Office of Childhood in the Christian Faith;" Paul Vitz (NYU), "The Religious Psychology of Childhood;" William Werpehowski (Villanova), "In Search of Real Children: Innocence, Absence, and Becoming a Self in Christ." Bonnie Miller-McLemore (Vanderbilt will also contribute a chapter to the volume, though she was unable to join in the recent session in Atlanta. Stephen Post (Case Western) shared in the Emory session and enriched it with perspectives medical, theological, and philosophical.
Suggestions about what a study of "The Vocation of the Child" should cover, and from what angles, will be gratefully received by me. I am privileged to serve as one of two co-directors of this project, and over the next two months we'll be canvassing more of the literature in hope of making our volume speak to the status quaestionis.
And yes, we owe this, too, to John Witte, that indefatigable and unfailingly generous generator of truly "binocular" work in law and religion. Where we would be without his industry, I tremble to imagine.
Monday, October 3, 2005
Louis Dupre at Notre Dame
Yale's Louis Dupre, an eminent scholar of religion, is giving this year's Erasmus Lectures at Notre Dame. Here's the info:
As the Erasmus lecturer, Dupré will present eight lectures under the collective title “Religion and the Rise of Modern Culture.” The first four of the talks, titled “Modern Culture: Its Promises and Disappointments,” will be given Monday (Oct. 3). All lectures will begin at in the
auditorium and are free and open to the public. Hesburgh
Center
Dupré’s teaching, writing and scholarship concern phenomenology, social theory and ethics. A pioneer in Marxist-Christian dialogue, he is a prominent scholar in the philosophy of religion and the study of mysticism. In addition to books and essays on the thought of Hegel, Marx and Kierkegaard, he has written widely on religion and modern culture. His book, “The Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature and Culture,” culminated a lifetime of reflection on the roots of modern culture.
The remainder of Dupré’s fall lecture schedule is as follows: “The Breakdown of the Union of Nature and Grace” on Oct. 5 (Wednesday), “The Crisis of the Enlightenment” on Oct. 10 (Monday), and “The Sources of Modern Atheism” on Oct. 12 (Wednesday).
Rick
Alabama 10 Commandments Judge Running for Governor
It's been expected for quite a while that this would eventually happen.
"Christian Academe v. Christians in Academe"
Here is a very provocative speech, "Christian Academe v. Christians in Academe," given recently at Abilene Christian University, by the University of Virginia's Kenneth Elzinga (an excellent scholar and legendary teacher). Read the whole thing. In response to the question, what should Christian higher education look like, Elzinga writes:
Christian higher education does not start with Christian students. That may surprise you. But I would hope Christian institutions do not have a Christian litmus test for students.
If students want to be a part of Christian higher education, they should be welcome. The Christian faith is defensible; the Christian faith is compelling; the Christian faith is true. So let unbelievers live and learn in the environment of Christian higher education and test the faith.
Jesus did not throw out Doubting Thomas. Christian higher education should be a place that welcomes Doubting Thomases, as students.
But Christian higher education should be dominated by a faculty who are followers of Jesus. The majority of faculty at a school of Christian higher education should be Christians. The institution makes no sense if that is not the case. Students are transients; they come and go. Christian higher education is defined by a core of faculty who believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:16), that every thought is to be made captive to Him and they are not ashamed of the gospel. . . .
For those who would object that a faculty predominantly Christian will suppress freedom of inquiry and the pursuit of truth, I would respond in two ways. The first is the chronicle of how secular authorities have suppressed truth as well. The second is with a rhetorical question: if Christian higher education is not made so by Christian educators, what is the alternative paradigm that merits the label?
If Christian higher education starts with Christian faculty, it must also have rules for living in a Christian community. But the rules are derivative of Christian higher education; they are not the foundation.
Years ago, T.S. Eliot put the matter this way: “The purpose of Christian higher education would not be merely to make men and women pious Christians… A Christian education must primarily teach people to be able to think in Christian categories.”
. . . [M]y concept of Christian higher education travels in a different direction than rules of student conduct. I happen not to think that Christian higher education should be safe. I think Christian higher education should have an edge to it, just as it was dangerous to hang around with Jesus.
There's a lot more.
Rick
The state of Catholic schools
The Sept. 19 issue of America includes an editorial, "Loss and Gain", on the state of Catholic secondary and elementary schools in America. It's a good news, bad news story. Check it out, and then write a check.
Rick
"A Culture of Life"
This editorial, from the September 26 issue of America, is worth a read:
Our church and society stand in need of renewed and sustained discussion regarding an ethic of life. Serious conversation has largely devolved into sloganeering and sound bites. The prevailing metaphor, “culture of life versus culture of death,” has galvanized people’s imaginations and inspired outcries on issues ranging from abortion to third world debt. Yet at times the image has been co-opted into polemic, and the conclusions reached have both obscured the long and nuanced tradition of the church and belied the range and complexity of the issues involved. . . .
The church . . . must help shape the discussion with questions, images and principles that illuminate, inspire and challenge. And Catholics can and should be prophetic in their challenge of contemporary mores, never more than when the lives of innocent persons are at stake. Yet in today’s divided, either/or world, our faith calls us to precision in our claims and temperance in our rhetoric. What will make us truly prophetic in this conversation is not edicts but example, the willingness to wrestle with complexity and show love for all. “You will know them by their deeds.... Any sound tree bears good fruit” (Mt 7:16, 18).
An ethic of life for today also calls for poetry. “Church people are like other people,” the biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann writes. “The deep places in our lives—places of resistance and embrace—are not ultimately reached by instruction. Those places of resistance and embrace are reached only by stories, by images, metaphors and phrases that line out the world differently, apart from our fear and hurt.” The language of metaphor and story finds a place for the held tensions and contradictions, loveliness and mystery of human life that are missing from the discourse of argument alone. . . .
To build a culture of life, we must commit ourselves to what a culture is: a body of mutually sustaining and self-critical symbols and practices, in dialogue with the broader world, that enable us to understand that world and inform our practices within it. No one image or idea can bear the weight of the whole conversation. . . .
I suspect that I would disagree with the editorial writer about whether, how, or to what extent the "culture of life" image been "co-opted into polemic[.]" I liked, though, the call for poetry.
"Vatican Official Decries Lack of School Funding"
The October 3 issue of America has a blurb about a recent speech by Archbishop J. Michael Miller, secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education. Archbishop Miller stated that Europeans are "absolutely amazed at the situation in the United States," for its anomalous refusal to provide any public funding for children in religious schools. Our policy puts us "in the company of North Korea, China, and Cuba," the Archbishop reported. (Here is another report).
Citing "the enormous contribution to society made by Catholic schools," he said providing public funding for that service is a matter of distributive justice. The right to a Catholic education "is so fundamental to the life of the church that this struggle cannot be given up," he said.
Being a hard-core vouchers supporter, I'm sympathetic to the Archbishop. Still, there is a "flip side": I think it is fair to say that Catholic schools in the United States enjoy more independence from state control than do the publicly funded schools in other countries. A tricky situation . . .
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
