The cover story of the latest issue of The New Republic is called "Without a Doubt: The Christianizing of America." The cover illustration features wax-model-type examples of various conservatives, who are on display before a curious young boy: Fr. Neuhas ("theocon") with Vice-Presideny Cheney ("GenghisCon"), Ann Coulter ("BlondCon"), Jack Abramoff ("ConCon"), Paul Wolfowitz ("NeoCon"), and Pat Buchanan ("PaleoCon"). Clever.
The long essay, written by Damon Linker -- who used to edit First Things and who is, I gather, writing a book about conservative Catholic intellectuals -- purports to be a review of Neuhaus's latest book, "Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth" (which I am reading right now). Actually, it is a sweeping denunciation of (what Linker represents as) Neuhaus' work, influence, goals, and understanding of Catholicism; his alleged contributions to the rise of the so-called Religious Right; and his influence on contemporary conservativism(s).
Linker's well-written and lengthy essay is, in my view, almost entirely wrong, badly undermined by uncharitable misunderstandings, and largely uncomprehending. True, I suppose one should be pleased when a magazine like The New Republic -- which I have been reading and enjoying for about 20 years -- devotes thousands of words, written by a smart person, to Catholic stuff, without suggesting that the Church caused the Holocaust or Pius XII was Hitler's Pope. (Instead, as I mention below, the piece merely suggests that Neuhaus's views are not far from Bin Laden's). The views of many of Fr. Neuhaus's critics will, I expect, be affirmed and validated; many of us who -- like me -- have read most of what Neuhaus has written during the last 20 years and found his work interesting, helpful, important, and even inspiring will be irritated, or worse.
Obviously, reasonable and thoughtful people -- Catholics and non-Catholics -- can and do disagree with Neuhaus about all kinds of things. I am sure there are good, helpful, critical reviews of Neuhaus's latest book in the works by engaged and informed Catholics and others who understand and are prepared to represent fairly and accurately -- even if they reject -- what it is that Neuhaus believes and proposes. Such reviews and critiques -- pieces that are more than just patricide-on-display -- are entirely appropriate.
But Linker -- even though, again, he knows and has worked with Neuhaus -- has not written such a review. His blistering critiques would be powerful, if they were directed at a real person. And, maybe they are . . . but that person is not Neuhaus. At the end, things get nasty, and wacky:
[T]he America toward which Richard John Neuhaus wishes to lead us [is] an America in which eschatological panic is deliberately channeled into public life, in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country's political institutions and make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence, in which citizens flee from the inner obligations of freedom and long to subordinate themselves to ecclesiastical authority, and in which traditionalist Christianity thoroughly dominates the nation's public life. All of which should serve as a potent reminder--as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder--that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America's most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it. It is a large part of what makes America worth living in.
This is paranoid, insulting, ignorant nonsense. The idea -- even the suggestion -- that Neuhaus's call to for a non-naked Public Square, and even his sharp denunciations of judicial overreaching in cases like Casey, is anything like, or takes us anywhere near, "the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world," is ludicrous. As for the claim that the only alternative to "the theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world" is "the strict separation of politics and religion", that "rare, precious, and fragile achievement" . . . please. We all can and should (and I'm sure Neuhaus does) happily endorse the "separation" of the institutions and authority of the Church from those of the State. But, the "strict separation of religion and politics" for which Linker claims to long is only possible by suppressing either religion or politics.
Thanks to both Rob Vischer and Michael Perry for their postings (here and here) on our conference the past two days on the Jurisprudential Legacy of Pope John Paul II. I don't have time this morning to do a full run down of yesterdays three panels (and hope that one or more the MOJ participants will add some thoughts about those). But I want to at least briefly mention some of the points raised in John Allen's keynote address (which will be included in the issue of the St. John's Journal of Catholic Legal Studies which publishes the papers from the confernce).
In his talk, Allen identified five areas of law and politics where he felt John Paul II's impact was felt most keenly, many of which we have debated here on Mirror of Justice: (1) the fallacy of legal positivism; (2) the intersection between faith and public policy; (3) human rights; (4) death penalty; and (5) international law and the use of force. He also identified three open questions that the Catholic Church still has to come to terms with under the papacy of Benedict XVI: (1) Catholics and public life (referencing the controversy in the last election over refusing Eucharist to certain politicians); (2) just was vs. humanitarian intervention; and (3) Catholic institutions under civil law (referencing the recent question regarding Catholic Charities ability to deny placing children for adoption with same-sex couples). My brief listing does not do justice to his talk, which was engaging, inspiring, and, at times, quite amusing (as he described his trips to some of the places John Paul II visited). But is hopefully gives you a little taste of what we experienced and we will doubtless be engaging on many of these issues in more detail both in the blogosphere and in other conferences.
... to have been with (among others) my fellow MOJ-bloggers at St. John's yesterday and the day before to discuss The Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II: Robert Araujo, Mike Scaperlanda, Greg Sisk, Susan Stabile, Amy Uelman, and Rob Vischer (and fellow travelers like Lisa Schiltz). It was a pleasure to be among you! Thanks so much to Susan Stabile and Michael Simons for organizing and hosting the symposium--and to Rob Vischer for having the inspired idea for the symposium. And congrats to all for a wonderfully successul gathering.
For those of you who couldn't be there: The papers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies.
_______________
mp
Friday, March 24, 2006
The April First Things includes a trenchant, short piece (still available only in paper), by my colleague Robert Miller, on what "Intelligent Design" is and is not. Check it out. In addition to explaining why "Intelligent Design" is not science (and therefore should not be advanced in "science" courses), it recommends as follows: "I think public high schools ought to offer, at the senior level, a course in philosophy, including metaphysics. The texts should include Aristotle and Aquinas on arguments for the existence of God but also criticisms of such arguments by Hume and Kant, as well as some contemporary philosophy of religion. This would negate the impression, perhaps created in science classes, that science explains everything there is to explain about the universe."
Today St. John's welcomed many MoJ-ers to its conference on the jurisprudential legacy of John Paul II. The opening panel explored several interesting themes, but one common inquiry was the extent to which John Paul modeled a publicly accessible mode of cultural engagement. Situating John Paul against the academic debates on religion's acceptability in public discourse, Greg Sisk emphasized the inseparable religious and political dimensions of the pontiff's prophetic ministry. Robert Araujo, S.J. linked John Paul's embrace of the rule of law with the inherently moral norms underlying international law's expansion beyond the rules of war and peace to a more sustained and aspirational peace-building effort. Rev. Gerald Twomey traced John Paul's evolving approach to the "preferential option for the poor" as evidence of John Paul's willingness to listen and learn from the real-world experiences of those with whom he came into contact.
The question-and-answer session was especially lively: Fordham philosophy prof Joseph Koterski, S.J. and Michael Perry sparred over whether John Paul's message of human dignity was accessible in purely philosophical terms (Koterski says yes; Perry, no), and the panelists offered various takes on whether Catholic social thought is more or less effective, powerful and authentic when its theological foundations (e.g., the Incarnation) are not brought to the surface when its concepts are brought to bear on society.
This synopsis does not even begin to capture the richness of the discussion; I encourage others to chime in with their own perspectives of the day. Other MoJers, including Amy Uelmen and Michael Scaperlanda, are on deck for tomorrow.
Rob
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Thanks to Steve for his stem-cell-research post. Some other related work -- which I think is very helpful -- comes from my colleague, Carter Snead: Here is the abstract for "The Pedagogical Significance of the Bush Stem Cell Policy" (Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics):
The enormous significance of the Bush stem cell funding policy has been evident since its inception. The announcement of the policy on August 9, 2001 marked the first time a U.S. president had ever taken up a matter of bioethical import as the sole subject of a major national policy address. Indeed, the August 9th speech was the President's first nationally televised policy address of any kind. Since then, the policy has been a constant focus of attention and discussion by political commentators, the print and broadcast media, advocacy organizations, scientists, elected officials, and candidates for all levels of office (including especially the 2004 Democratic nominee for President, Senator John Kerry, who made his opposition to the Bush policy a centerpiece of his domestic campaign, mentioning it explicitly in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention). The biotechnology industry has taken a keen interest in stem cell research as a possible avenue for medical therapies; one study suggests that as of 2002 private sector companies had spent an aggregate of $208 million on research and development of stem cell technologies. In response to the policy, there has been a flurry of state legislation proposed and enacted, with some states affirming and others condemning the Administration's approach. Finally, the great prominence of the national and international debate on human cloning has drawn further attention to the issue of embryonic stem cell research (and by extension, the Bush policy), given that one application of somatic cell nuclear transfer is the production of cloned human embryos from which stem cells may be derived (so-called Therapeutic Cloning).
To date, the significance of the Bush stem cell policy has been framed and publicly debated in terms of its practical import: Does it impede the scientific and medical progress that the research seems to promise? Is it adequately protective and respectful of embryonic human life? Aside from its great practical significance, however, the Bush policy is arguably one of the most important recent legal developments for the field of bioethics for an additional reason: its deep pedagogical significance. The Bush policy provides an unparalleled window into the nature and substance of bioethical regulation within the unique framework of the American system of government. And it does so in dramatic fashion, against the backdrop of some of the most enduring and vexing questions in all of bioethics: What is owed to developing human life, and how does this obligation stand in relation to the aim of science to advance knowledge with the ultimate aspiration of alleviating human suffering? Reflecting on the nature and scope of the policy yields insights into a number of crucial matters that are central to the problem of whether and how to govern science and medicine according to bioethical principles. This Essay will briefly explore five areas in which the Bush policy is thus instructive: (1) the conceptual understanding of regulation as a legal category; (2) the principles of federalism; (3) the significance of federal funding; (4) the nature of governance according to a particular type of moral principle (e.g., bright line); and (5) the influence of political prudence and respect for pluralism.
And, here is a link to another paper by Snead, "Preparing the Groundwork for a Responsible Debate on Stem-Cell Research and Human Cloning":
The debate over both cloning and stem cell research has been intense and polarizing. It played a significant role in the recently completed presidential campaign, mentioned by both candidates on the stump, at both parties' conventions, and was even taken up directly during one of the presidential debates. The topic has been discussed and debated almost continuously by the members of the legal, scientific, medical, and public policy commentariat. I believe that it is a heartening tribute to our national polity that such a complex moral, ethical, and scientific issue has become a central focus of our political discourse. But, as you have no doubt noticed, the content of the discourse itself has been sometimes quite impoverished and unsatisfying. No one camp in this debate is solely to blame for these difficulties - partisans on all sides bear some measure of responsibility for the current state of the public discourse. In the interests of improving the quality of public deliberation and discussion on this matter, I will provide a few modest suggestions for how the public debate might be improved. I begin with a few general observations applicable to both domains under consideration today, stem cell research and cloning. Then I focus on each separately; first, directing my comments to stem cell research, and then turning to the distinct (though obviously closely related) matter of cloning.
Four UCLA professors (including yours truly) were asked to do short comments on California Proposition 71, which set up funding of stem cell research, including programs here at UCLA. The UCLA magazine's website has published those opinions and has a reader poll where you can vote for the position most closely representing your own view. Here's my take:
"A key problem with this debate it that you have attractive and sympathetic spokespeople like [stem cell activist and UCLA grad student Candace] Coffee, whose stories play on our emotions. But who speaks for the unborn child? We only get one side of the story. The Catholic Church, of course, claims to speak for the fetus: ‘All human beings, from their mothers’ womb, belong to God who searches them and knows them, who forms them and knits them together with his own hands, who gazes on them when they are tiny shapeless embryos and already sees in them the adults of tomorrow whose days are numbered and whose vocation is even now written in the “book of life”’ (compare Psalms 139:1, 13-16) - Evangelium Vitae, 61.
“If you believe that human life begins at conception, as I do, creating human lives for the purpose of destroying them is an intrinsically evil act (as California’s Catholic bishops have made clear). Even if you believe human life begins sometime later than conception, however, you should still oppose Proposition 71. Stem cell research advocate Francis Fukuyama blasted Proposition 71 as ‘a huge, self-dealing giveaway of money from cash-strapped California taxpayers to a small group of institutions and companies that will remain largely unaccountable.’ California’s taxes are already among the highest in the country. Why then should California taxpayers who are opposed to the intentional destruction of human embryos in the name of scientific research be forced to subsidize venture capitalists, biotech companies and research institutions that already receive vast state and federal handouts?”
Also on the stem cell issue, my UCLA law colleagues Russell Korobkin and Stephen Munzer have just posted to SSRN a very detailed monograph on the law of stem cells, discussing "issues concerning the regulation of research, patent protection for stem cell innovations, informed consent of research subjects, and property rights in human tissue."
So, a few days ago, in a post called "An Outrage in Afghanistan," I noted the case of Abdul Rahman, who apparently faces execution in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity. (According to some more recent reports, he might end up being declared "mentally unfit", and therefore not subject to penalties for his apostasy). Now I learn that the New York Times has an editorial today, called "Outrage in Afghanistan," about the same case, expressing (pretty much) the same views I did. Hmmm . . . I'm getting nervous.
In all seriousness, though, this line in the editorial did raise some questions: "Muslim leaders would also do well to condemn this strongly; those who continue to hold the teachings of Islam hostage to intolerance do grievous harm to their religion." I'm not an expert on Islam, but I imagine that those who wrote the editorial aren't, either. So, is the editorial's claim that, in fact, the call to execute Rahman for apostasy really is inconsistent with Islam, and so "Muslim leaders" -- in order to be good Muslims -- should condemn the call? Or, is the claim that Muslim leaders should -- in order to be good citizens of the 21-st century secular world order -- condemn the call in order to help move Islam in a direction that the editors think Islam (and all religions) should go (i.e., away from "intolerance"?).
