I've talked with Brian Tamanaha quite a bit in the past about his point regarding the relationship between human rights and a belief in God, so I might not be raising anything new. And to be clear, I do not believe that atheists are demonstrably less moral than believers are. In my view, it takes a significant level of thoughtfulness and proactive moral agency to reject the idea of God in our culture (though that may be changing); most of the atheists I know have spent a lot more time thinking about these issues and taking ownership of a meaningful moral code than most Christians I know. Nevertheless, let me take a crack at showing why a belief in God is, in general, more supportive of a belief in human rights than atheism is.
I agree that both the atheist and theist must commit themselves to human rights by an act of faith: for the theist, it's a faith in a certain type of God, and for the atheist, faith in the intrinsic value (?) of human beings. But the atheist knows that his belief in human rights is an act of will -- he knows there is no reality that compels him to recognize human rights; it's more accurate to say that he's creating human rights because, in light of human experience and his observations of reality, they work. For the theist, though, his faith in human rights is simply recognizing the implications of his faith in God. And so I disagree with Brian's assertion that it's the existence of God, not the belief in God's existence, that matters for human rights. It is the belief that matters. Whether or not God actually exists, if I believe in the God that is at the center of the world's major religions -- that is, a God who wants to be in relationship with his creation, thereby signaling human beings' inestimable value in God's eyes -- then human rights are an unavoidable implication of that belief for anyone who wants to live in harmony with God's design.
As for Brian's question on the value of this whole line of inquiry, I obviously can't speak for Michael, but I would venture to say that the point is not to marginalize the many non-religious voices who have been and remain essential to the struggle for human rights, but to make clear that, in a public square where religion is often greeted as an archaic and divisive obstacle to human understanding, religion might still hold the best hope for instilling a deep commitment to human dignity and worth..
There have been several reports on MoJ about recent events at Ave Maria Law School. Now the school's dean gives his side of the story in an interview with the blog, Above the Law. Here's an excerpt:
There’s no question that the relocation to Florida is a catalyst for the discontent. There is a significant group of people who don’t want to go and don’t want the school to go. And they’re doing whatever they can to stop it.
We also have a group of people here who have a very different idea of governance from the Board’s views, my views, and the ABA’s. They think that decisions like this can only be made if they are part of the decisionmaking process, as opposed to giving their input. They wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less than sitting down with the board and making the decision about the move.
I'll leave it to others with direct knowledge of the situation to judge whether this accurately reflects the nature of the faculty's discontent.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
In response to Jonathan Watson's comment, Brian Tamanaha reiterates his point about the connection between religion and human rights:
There is no doubt that human rights can be traced back historically to religious influences (and the same can be said of aspects of European culture). There is no doubt that much of morality generally has important religious influences (past and present). There is no doubt that religion can and does lend important support to human rights today. I did not and would not argue against any of these points. My post does not diminish the significance of religion in any of these respects. These points do not, however, establish that atheists are less moral or less able to support human rights, which was the focus of my post.
Specifically, my post defends the soundness of non-religious commitments to human rights against Perry's arguments that, because atheists lack a foundation for believing in human dignity, religious grounds for human rights are more coherent and hence superior. The thrust of my argument is that both religious folks and atheists are equally vulnerable to the assertion that we lack a foundation for our beliefs. In the end, I assert, we both get beyond this by making a commitment (an act of faith) to embrace our beliefs.
My new colleague, Joel Nichols, had this response to Brian McCall's comments:
I’ve read with interest a couple of the MOJ posts on scripture and found them interesting – since (as a Protestant brought up in an “evangelical” tradition, for lack of better terminology) I have found it curious that the MOJ project so rarely refers to the Bible in its discussions.
While the other extreme to Brian McCall’s post would be the severe “proof-texting” sometimes practiced by some Christians, I would surely hope (and indeed believe) that there is something in between. I’m particularly troubled by Brian statement below that “Protestants only having one aspect of Revelation are obviously left starting with all they have.” This is a pretty extreme over-simplification of Protestant positions, as there are surely gradiants in between (A) having “only” Scripture and (B) Brian’s description of having “Scripture and Tradition” but then only approaching Scripture after first consulting Tradition.
Just by short examples, at seminary we often discussed John Wesley’s so-called “Methodist quadrilateral” of sources, which advances (1) Scripture; (2) tradition; (3) reason; and (4) experience (as informed by the Holy Spirit). Or, the Episcopal Church regularly talks about (1) Scripture; (2) Tradition; and (3) Reason as sources of authority. There is some interesting thinking and writing within Protestantism (including evangelicalism) right now regarding how much weight to give to the various sources of authority, and I know of individual churches having classes on exactly this question. Personally, to my traditionally evangelical mind, it still seems imperative to start with Scripture – although I would be very quick to add caveats about “proper” interpretation and the use of other sources. (One could argue this just a variant of legal “originalism,” I suspect.) While part of the difference between Protestants and Catholics about sources likely stems, I suspect, from the still-strong difference in some Protestant and Catholic thought regarding the propriety of individual interpretation versus a more hierarchical interpretation, we shouldn’t be too quick to mis-characterize the Protestant position here either. The best Protestant sources (to my mind, at least) have never advocated pure individual interpretation outside the boundaries of Christian tradition – but have rather insisted that individual interpretation can/should only take place in the context of community (including both current and past community).
While I would not at all condone the proof-texting that has been done in various circles in the past but instead insist that we should have a more robust understanding of Scripture, including its themes and overall tenor more than just singular passages, neither does it seem the right starting point to work “backwards,” if you will, by beginning with tradition and only later going to scripture. [Interesting also to my mind is that underneath such a discussion about sources lie serious issues about revelation, authority, human nature and capabilities, polity, and other deep matters, even though this seems on the surface only an issue of sources.]
Continuing with book suggestions, I thought I'd recommend a couple that I've read this summer:
Karma and Other Stories by Rishi Reddi. These finely wrought short stories all deal with the lives of Indian immigrant families and their American-born children, primarily in the Boston area. But as with much excellent literature, the author uses her immersion in this particular setting to bring to the surface universal themes: and not just the familiar immigrant tension between traditional and American cultures. In many of the stories, characters are trapped by some sort of pride (the fundamental sin, we Christians say) and can only become free by letting their pride go and, in several cases, forgiving. The story "Lord Krishna" is the only piece of serious [CORRECTION: serious modern] fiction I know dealing with a church-and-state dispute.
The Age of Abundance by Brink Lindsey. This history of postwar American culture and politics is full of arresting quotes and revealing statistics, and it's a very enjoyable read. Its theme is the rippling effect on America of our sudden, unprecedented material prosperity after World War II. (One powerful tidbit of evidence: in the mid-1950s "[t]he average teenager's income of $10.55 a week now matched the disposable income of the typical American family in the early 1940s" (emphasis in original).) He traces prosperity's ties to lots of things that created the context in which we explore legal theory today: the 60s social revolution, the counterreaction of conservative religion, the resulting culture wars, and the overall trend in America toward libertarianism both moral and economic. It's more a survey than a deep analysis, and Catholic thinkers will want to resist, in varying ways, the libertarian logic that the author finds inevitable (and, as an official at the Cato Institute, celebrates). But the book organizes an awful lot of American life -- politics, religion, business, sexual mores, popular music -- into a highly readable narrative.
Tom
Brian McCall of Oklahoma University College of Law offers these thoughts on the MOJ & the Bible question, raising the question of the relative "authoritative value" of Scripture and "Sacred Tradition." Any thoughts on this? The issue of the relative authority of different Church teachings is something that we ended up discussing quite a bit at the June Conference on Catholic Legal Thought meeting, and something we think we'll address in more depth at next year's meeting.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics do not have “an” original text. Scripture and Sacred Tradition are of equal original authoritative value and both of which are inerrant. In fact Sacred Tradition could be seen as taking priority over the Scripture in researching a topic because part of Tradition is to authoritatively interpret Scripture. Therefore, I think it is wholly Catholic to begin with Tradition (Fathers, Scholastics, Encyclicals, Catechisms) when reviewing a question. From these sources relevant biblical texts will emerge. After orienting ourselves in the answer we can then turn to the passages and read them in light of the interpretation preserved by the Church.
I don’t think this is radically different from legal research (at least as I do it). We often begin with a treatise/law review and then from there read the statute discussed in light of the explanation. Protestants only having one aspect of Revelation are obviously left starting with all they have.
