The excellent blog, "Get Religion", has a new round of links and commentary.
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
More on Ave Maria Town
Euthanasia making a comeback?
Joseph Bottum thinks so.
List of "blawgs"
Over at "3L Epiphany," there is a comprehensive list of law-related blogs.
response to Lauritzen on the Terri Schiavo case
I have to confess that I didn't find the essay by Paul Lauritzen on the Terri Schiavo case very convincing. His main point is that the withdrawal of food and water didn't run afoul of Catholic teaching because the withdrawal didn't necessarily aim at death. Rather, Lauritzen claims, we are adopting a "let nature take its course" position and refusing to worship the false gods of technology in pursuit of "mere existence."
Putting aside the point that the providing food and water does not involve the use of high-tech care, I don't think this is a sound argument. Lauritzen claims that people such as Terri are in fact dying because of their natural inability to chew and swallow. We don't apply this way of thinking to most people in a state of dependency (infants who have a natural inability to feed themselves). As Bill May and others have pointed out patients in a persistent vegetative state are "not in fact dying from a fatal pathology. They are simply persons seriously impaired." The "problem" is that they are "biologically tenacious"--that is, they won't die soon enough, and that is precisely the aim of the withdrawal of food and water. Courts make this error all the time. The Florida courts in the Estelle Browning thought her death was "imminent" because she'd die within a short time without food and water. I think a reading of Lauritzen's essay makes clear that he doesn't think the lives of such patients are worth very much, or perhaps not worth anything at all. He explicitly denies this but I don't think the full essay supports his denial.
A better treatment of this issue is Mark Latkovic's fine article in volume 5 (pages 503-513) of the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (Autumn 2005).
Richard
Meyler on "The Equal Protection of Free Exercise"
Check out this new paper, "The Equal Protection of Free Exercise," by Bernadette Meyler (Cornell):
Contrary to critics of the Supreme Court's current equal protection approach to religious liberty, this Article contends that, from the very first federal free exercise cases, the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses have been mutually imbricated. The seeds of an equal protection analysis of free exercise were, indeed, planted even before the Fourteenth Amendment within the constitutional jurisprudence of the several states. Nor, this Article argues, should equal protection approaches be uniformly disparaged. Rather, the drawbacks that commentators have observed result largely from the Supreme Court's application of an inadequate version of equal protection that ignores the lessons that the Fourteenth Amendment taught about the nature of group classification and instead, by emphasizing the individual in isolation, downplays her free exercise claims. Considering this tendency within the context of current theories of group rights and antidiscrimination law, the Article concludes that we should resuscitate the now neglected, alternative strand of an equal protection approach to free exercise.
Very interesting!
Another contraception mandate?
It appears that Connecticut -- a heavily Catholic state -- is considering requiring Catholic hospitals to provide "emergency contraception." (Thanks to Professor Friedman at Religion Clause for the link).
The Solomon Amendment case
Here, at Prawfsblawg, are some interesting thoughts, by Prof. Paul Horwitz, about this week's unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in the Solomon Amendment case.
Michael's talk
Although (contrary to what my friend Michael Perry would have you believe), the death penalty is constitutional, even if immoral, let me enthusiastically second his invitation to all New York-area folks to attend his upcoming lecture on capital punishment and the Constitution. I've read the paper he will be presenting, and it is learned and provocative.
More from Eduardo
Here are Eduardo's thoughts in response to Robert George's latest:
I thank Prof. George for his willingness to engage us in this interesting discussion. But I must respectfully express my continued belief that he misunderstands the point of Michael's original post. No one doubts the value of the seamless garment, although we may disagree about the specific details of that garment's patterns. I think (if I may speak for Michael) that the purpose of his original post was simply to point out the ways in which people choose to emphasize one or another aspect of that garment depending on their partisan preferences. (The Church's teachings on abortion are really a more apt comparison than its teachings on sexual ethics in this regard, if only because so few Catholics of any political stripe accept the Church's teachings on contraception.)Catholic Democrats are often accused of soft-pedaling the Church's position on abortion, with which they purport to agree. (John Kerry's lame answer in the presidential debates comes to mind.) On the other hand, Republican Catholic public intellectuals have been notably silent on the torture question.To respond to this observation by offering to sign a joint statement affirming the seamless garment really misses the point. If anything, it strengthens the point I took Michael to be making. Catholic Republicans do not feel compelled to talk about the death penalty and torture every time they want to criticize the Democrats for their position on legal abortion. Why, then, the need to bring up abortion (etc.) when a question is posed about the intrinsic evil of this administration's policies on torture? I simply do not agree that it would be pointless to issue a statement signed by Catholics across the political spectrum condemning torture without mentioning other aspects of the seamless garment. Would it be equally pointless for Catholic Republicans and Democrats to join hands to sign a statement reaffirming their belief in the evil of abortion?
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
God Speaks
The Guardian
March 8, 2006
God: "I've lost faith in Blair"
All the signs are that the Almighty is unhappy about efforts to implicate Him in the attack on Iraq
Terry Jones [of Monty Python]
A
high-level leak has revealed that God is "furious" at Tony Blair's
attempts to implicate him in the bombing of Iraq. Sources close to the
archangel Gabriel report him as describing the Almighty as "hopping mad
... with sanctimonious yet unscrupulous politicians claiming He would
condone their bestial activities when He has no way of going public
Himself, owing to the MMW agreement" (a reference to the
long-established Moving in Mysterious Ways concordat).
Mr Blair
went public about God on Michael Parkinson's TV show. "If you have
faith about these things," he said, "then you realise that judgment is
made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."
As is customary with Mr Blair's statements, it's rather hard to tease
out what he is actually saying; but the gist is clearly that if God
didn't actually tell him to bomb Iraq, then the Almighty would
certainly agree it was the right thing to do.
"If Tony Blair
thinks his friendship with George W Bush is worth rubbing out a couple
of hundred thousand Iraqi men, women and children, then that's
something he can talk over with me later," said God. "But when he
starts publicly claiming that's the way I do the arithmetic too, it's
time I put my foot down!" It is well known that God has a very big foot.
A
source says Gabriel has spent days trying to dissuade the Almighty from
loosing a plague of toads upon the Blair family. Gabriel reminded God
that Cherie and the children had nothing to do with Tony's decisions.
God's response, it is reliably reported, was: "Blair says the Iraqis
are lucky to have got bombed, so how can he complain if his family gets
a few toads in the bath?"
The archangel is said to be ticked off with God's ability to provide glib answers without even thinking.
What
has particularly incensed the Almighty is that Mr Blair made the claim
on the Parkinson show. "If he'd done it on Richard and Judy I could
have forgiven a lot," He is reported to have said.
The archangel
reported that the Almighty has become increasingly irritated with the
vogue for politicians to claim that He is behind their policies -
especially if these involve killing large numbers of humans. According
to Gabriel, God spake these words: "That George W Bush once had the
nerve to say: 'God told me to go end the tyranny in Iraq, and I did.'
Well, let me tell you I did no such thing! If I'd wanted to get rid of
Saddam Hussein, I could have given him pneumonia. I didn't need the
president of the United States to send in hundreds of heavy bombers and
thousands of missiles to destroy Iraq - even though I appreciate that
Halliburton needed to fill its order books."
"How do Bush and
Blair think it makes me look to all those parents who have lost sons
and daughters in this grubby business? Don't they know that the Muslims
they're taking out worship the same Me that they do? It's a public
relations disaster that ought to set Christianity back hundreds of
years. Though knowing the fundamentalists, it'll probably have the
reverse effect."
The archangel further revealed that he had been
advised by no less a person than Alastair Campbell to warn God to keep
out of politics. "But it's hard to get God to do anything He doesn't
want to," sighed the archangel. "It's all to do with what He calls
'free will', though a lot of us have a problem working that one out,
since He's omnipotent and omniscient."
God, the archangel says,
is also disturbed by Mr Blair's remark that while religious beliefs
might colour his politics, "it's best not to take it too far".
"How would he like it if I went round claiming that he gave me his full backing when I sent the tsunami last year?"
Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
www.terry-jones.net
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited