Welcome back, Mark

Mark's sojourn in the land of la dolce vita has wound down, and we're pleased to have him back in full-on-MOJ-posting mode.  He notes (nicely):

The latest issue of issue of Commonweal contained Rick's characteristically insightful review of three relatively new books on Church/State, including Noah Feldman's, which was discussed at length here on MOJ, and Marci Hamilton's GOD VS. THE GAVEL, which we did discuss, although not at as great length. I suspect that the strict limits on the length of reviews in my favorite mag kept Rick from a longer critique of Marci's book (Rick -- am I wrong?).

No, Mark is not wrong.  I share Mark's affection for Marci Hamilton, and also his concern that she goes too far "in her willingness to chop back constitutional protections for religious practices."

A question for Mark, who observes:

[Foer] emphasizes the political implications of this convergence by pointing out the increased use of Catholic CST rhetoric in Bush's last presidential campaign (solidarity, the common good, protecting the weakest member of society, etc.) I'll let the readers decide for themselves whether that use of this rhetoric meant anything or whether it was just cant --you can imagine where I stand on that.)

Actually, Mark . . . where do you stand on that?  Do you think that Bush's use of "CST rhetoric" was entirely or "just cant"?

I also think Foer goes astray (in his very good piece) in characterizing the (soon) five Catholics on the Court as "economic libertarians."  There is simply no evidence that these Justices are "economic libertarians"; that they interpret and apply laws enacted by a Congress that has long been "pro-business," or that they interpret and enforce constitutional provisions that reflect a (perhaps) "libertarian" desire to protect individual rights by constraining government power, does not make them "economic libertarians."  Similarly, I think Mark missteps when he refers to the "highly tendentious and contested nature of [the Justices'] Catholicism, particularly with respect to the social and economic issues" or to "their Novak-inspired 'Catholic' view of the proper relationship between the market and the state[.]"  My own views, as Mark knows, are closer to Neuhaus's than his are -- and are, as I'm sure Mark would concede, "Catholic" without the scare quotes -- but still:  I do not believe there is data from which Mark could fairly draw conclusions about the "tendentious and contested nature" of the Justices' Catholicism on "economic issues" (or, for that matter, "social issues").

In any event, welcome home!