During Visit, Pelosi Offers Support to Dalai Lama By SOMINI SENGUPTA
DHARAMSALA, India — As far as visits by American politicians go, it would be hard to stage a warmer reception.
Buddhist nuns waved American flags and the Dalai Lama ordered his followers to offer a standing ovation Friday morning as Nancy Pelosi,
the speaker of the House of Representatives, came to Dharamsala, the
emotionally charged headquarters of Tibetan exiles, and seized the
opportunity to stick a finger in the eye of China.
“If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in China and Tibet,
we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights
anywhere in the world,” Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told an
overwhelmingly Tibetan audience of around 2,000 people in the courtyard
of the town’s main temple, Tsulakhang.
The visit by Ms. Pelosi, accompanied by nine other members of
Congress, most of them Democrats, was arranged some time ago as part of
a visit to India. As it happened, though, it came on the heels of the
largest protests in Tibet in nearly two decades, followed by a broad
crackdown by China, and almost nonstop demonstrations in solidarity in
this city, where the Tibetan government in exile has its base.
The timing could not have been better, at least for the Americans.
It was unclear what the visit would yield for Tibetans or even for the
Dalai Lama, other than a symbolic boost. Certainly Ms. Pelosi’s visit
received more coverage from the news media than it might otherwise
have; the protests in Tibet have brought reporters from around the
world to this small Indian hill town.
On Friday morning, Ms. Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi,
descended the stairs of the temple to huge applause, with the Dalai
Lama sandwiched between them, holding their hands.
“We are here at this time to join you in shedding bright light on what is happening inside Tibet,” Ms. Pelosi said.
Throughout her speech, which lasted less than 10 minutes, the Dalai
Lama sat in a stuffed chair, clasping his hands, rocking side to side,
a smile on his lips.
“Little did we know we would be coming at such a very sad time,”
she continued. “Perhaps it is our karma, perhaps it is our fate we be
with you at this time.”
The prime minister of the Tibetan government in exile, Samdhong
Rinpoche, said just before Ms. Pelosi arrived that his administration
had no specific requests of the American politicians. “That she will
suggest,” he said.
The winding road to the temple was lined with flags — of the United States, India, and the Tibetan government in exile.
One man in the audience held up a homemade placard that read “Thank you for recognizing nonviolent struggle.”
A 38-year-old monk who spent four years in a Chinese prison for
participating in protests in Tibet in 1988 said he hoped Ms. Pelosi
would use her visit to put concrete pressure on the Chinese government,
including encouraging dialogue with Beijing and a push for
international humanitarian agencies to aid those injured.
“If she doesn’t do anything and just come here, then nothing,” said the monk, who gave his name as Bagdro.
The American delegation was first accompanied by the Dalai Lama to
the main prayer hall of Tsulakhang Temple. They were scheduled to have
lunch at the Dalai Lama’s residence, followed by a visit to a Tibetan
school and crafts center nearby.
The Dalai Lama has long enjoyed American support.
Last fall in Washington, he received the Congressional Gold Medal.
Ms. Pelosi noted then that when the Dalai Lama was young, he received a
gold watch from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which he carried with him when fleeing Tibet in 1959.
Her first message to the audience on Friday was to acknowledge their gift to her country.
“Thank you for your warm welcome and thank you especially for
flying the American flag today,” she told them. “This is more than we
could have ever dreamed of.”
MOJ friend Russ Powell, of Seattle University School of Law, has just posted to SSRN a working paper, Theology in Public Reason and Legal Discourse: A Case for the Preferential Option for the Poor. Here is the abstract:
"There is a strange disconnect between the formal understanding of the separation of religion from government in the United States and the almost ubiquitous use of religious language in political discourse, not to mention the web of complicated religious motivations that sit on or just below the surface of policy debates. This paper presents an argument for the relevance of the principle of the "preferential option for the poor" from Catholic social thought in public reason and legal discourse in order to explore the possible advantages of making the veil between religion and the secular state more permeable. As a case study, it proposes dialogue between Catholicism and complementary secular thought, including standpoint theory, outsider methodology, and law and economics to explore possibilities for more effectively ensuring justice for the poor and marginalized. (An earlier version of this article was presented at Law, Culture and the Humanities at Georgetown Law Center in 2007.)"
I heard Russ present this paper at Seattle's March 7 symposium on Religion, Pluralism and the Law (about which I posted here) and am very much looking forward to reading the piece. It can be downloaded here.
Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus's Passion. Hence in all human suffering we are joined by one who experiences and carries that suffering with us; hence con-solatio is present in all suffering, the consolation of God's compassionate love—and so the star of hope rises.
The violent protests in Tibet that began last week and have since spread across (and beyond) China are frequently depicted as a secessionist threat to Beijing. But the regime's deeper problem in the current crisis is neither ethnic nor territorial. It's religious. . . .
Early in the New Year of 2008 I posed several questions about our project of Catholic Legal Theory and end times—end times not in the context of final world conflagration, but in the sense of the destiny of the human being. In short, my posting [HERE] was designed to raise questions and a potential discussion about the role that Catholic Legal Theory may play in matters eschatological and soteriological. At that time, I mentioned that I would not be offering answers, and no one else came forward with any thoughts in response to my posting. Now that we are at the beginning of the Easter Triduum, I thought I would provide readers with a few thoughts on the matters that I raised in my January post.
I would like to begin with the question Pilate poses to Jesus: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) It would appear that truth and the law have something in common in that witnesses called to testify pledge that they will bear witness to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help them God). Jesus reminds us that he is the way, the truth, and the life—and no one goes to the Father except through Jesus. (John 14:6) Somehow, the truth of human existence and human destiny is that God sent His only son so that we who believe in Him will be saved and be granted eternal life. (John 3:16-18) Disciples are called to testify to this truth, and I suppose this would include we who call ourselves Catholic Legal Theorists.
During these next several days, we have an abundance of rich opportunities to reflect on the meaning of these passages from the Gospel of St. John in the context of our lives as people of faith, as disciples of Christ, and as those who have some opportunity through our calling to assist others in considering God’s truth about human destiny. I am not suggesting that it is the role of Catholic Legal Theorists to advocate for theocratic governance, but I am proposing that Catholic Legal Theorists, through their writing, teaching, and lecturing, can exercise a role in which the law that is enacted, enforced, and adjudicated might be disposed to complementing this truth about human nature and human destiny. While an imperfect institution, the law nevertheless can be a means by which more members of the human family have the opportunity to meet this truth and to fulfill the corresponding destiny that accompanies it—even if the only truth that can be realized is partial, i.e., there is something beyond the present moment toward which civil society can properly attempt.
In particular, we Catholic Legal Theorists might consider how our positions, callings, and responsibilities in life enable us to assist those with whom we work—be they students, colleagues, practitioners, jurists, legislators, administrators, or citizens (to mention a few pertinent categories)—in acknowledging that there just might be something beyond the present moment in which a purer form of justice—right relation with one another and right relation with God—is an objective worth seeking through the mechanisms of the law that we help shape and implement.
Considering the holy season in which we find ourselves and our belief in the one who came to save us all, might we be resolved to assist ourselves and others in the pursuit of this truth that is of God and His son? And if this be our resolution, surely the one whom we commemorate and celebrate in the event of Easter may well be disposed to take care of the rest so that the hope and promise of this season is fulfilled and the truth He is will be accepted by more of our fellow pilgrims in this world as we await and prepare for the next.
I received the following from a law student, and I think the student's profound questions go to the heart of our project at MOJ. Can the law educate? How can it educate? How should it account for human weakness, sin, and the Fall? I would hope that MOJ authors and readers of all political stripes will take a stab at an answer.
Here is the email:
I just got done reading this article by David Mamet (a playwright who uses the word "f--k" anytime he needs a syllable filled in) about his conversion from liberalism to conservativism.
Reading the article, the thing I'm struck by most is just how quietly reasonable the whole thing is. I mean, essentially what he says is that liberals are always forgetting that people are too fallen for government to do much since everyone seeks his or her self interest. Why should we not create a system in which each person pursuing his or her self interest (what they will do anyway) will create the best outcomes?
I actually kind of buy all of that. I do believe that that is how people will behave most of the time (if any one thing is plainly universal, it’s the fall). BUT a Thomistic view of the law is precisely that law SHOULD be a school (contra Mamet) and not just a marketplace; that it has a teaching mechanism about what is valuable and what is good; that this mechanism is invaluable in helping people to rise above this base self interest and become good.
So then, realizing that this is no small question, what to do? It seems wise to create a system that accounts for human beings acting as we know they will act (concupiscence dictates that, this side of paradise, we can count on this truth). But if that action is not the way people should act, is it good to create a system that relies on and glorifies this self-interest seeking? And is it good to sacrifice law's educational role in order to create a system that works relatively well? Do we expect people to act in accord with original sin, as Mamet suggests, or do we give opportunities for them to rise above it, realizing it may not happen at all?
A final note about how flawed our system of self interest is. I just got done reading a case for Business Associations about Henry Ford. Turns out Ford wasn't worried about profits, but really just wanted to make cars affordable, give people jobs at good wages, and get cars into every home. He got sued by his own shareholders for not seeking his own - and, as a result, their - interest. And they won, despite the fact that they were making tons of money anyway.
Anyway, this juxtaposition (knowing how people will act v. teaching them not to act that way) really struck me. And I'm not sure what to do with it. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
LONDON (AP) — Paul Scofield, the towering British stage actor who won international fame and an Academy Award for the film "A Man for All Seasons," has died. He was 86.
Scofield died Wednesday in a hospital near his home in southern England, agent Rosalind Chatto said. He had been suffering from leukemia.
Scofield made few films even after the Oscar for his 1966 portrayal of Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More. He was a stage actor by inclination and by his gifts — a dramatic, craggy face and an unforgettable voice that was likened to a Rolls Royce starting up or the rumbling sound of low organ pipes.
Even his greatest screen role was a follow up to a play — the London stage production of "A Man for All Seasons," in which he starred for nine months. Scofield also turned in a performance in the 1961 New York production that won him extraordinary reviews and a Tony Award.
"With a kind of weary magnificence, Scofield sinks himself into the part, studiously underplays it, and somehow displays the inner mind of a man destined for sainthood," Time magazine's said.
Actor Richard Burton, once regarded as the natural heir to Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud at the summit of British theater, said it was Scofield who deserved that place. "Of the 10 greatest moments in the theater, eight are Scofield's," he said.
Scofield was an unusual star — a family man who lived almost his entire life within a few miles of his birthplace in southern England and hurried home after work to his wife and children. He didn't seek the spotlight, gave interviews sparingly, and at times seemed to need coaxing to venture out, even onto the stage he loved.
Several of us blogged, a few weeks ago, about the decision of a California state court involving homeschooling. Over at "On the Square", Joe Knippenberg has this detailed post and update. A taste:
In the end, there’s no good substitute for a law that explicitly acknowledges and civilizes the right of parents to educate their children at home, subjecting homeschooling to reasonable regulation to see that children are prepared for productive lives as citizens. I have no doubt that the vast majority of homeschooling families could produce results that are more than satisfactory.
I also have no doubt that a law generally providing for homeschooling—religious or secular—is preferable to an arrangement that requires judges or educational administrators to examine a family’s religious beliefs in an effort to determine whether they justify a free-exercise exemption from compulsory attendance laws. More than anything else, we don’t want access to legal rights or privileges dependent upon a secular official’s theological or doctrinal determinations. That sounds too much like establishment.
My advice to California homeschoolers is to return to the first principles of republican self-government. That means recurring first to the politically responsible branches and above all to the legislature. Make the case for amending California’s compulsory education law to accommodate the rapid growth—in the state and across the nation—of homeschooling. Build coalitions. In the face of likely opposition from teachers’ unions, it won’t be easy. But think of it as a lesson in active and responsible citizenship. Your kids will appreciate it.
Whenever Ronald Reagan would mention his suspicion that Mikhail Gorbachev was a secret believer, everyone on the White House staff would scoff, thinking the president naive. When I had the opportunity to speak to Gorbachev a couple of years ago, however, I found myself concluding that Reagan had been onto something after all. Why, I asked, had Gorbachev refrained from putting down the revolution of 1989, just as Khrushchev had put down the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Brezhnev had put down the Prague Spring of 1968? "Because of something I shared with Ronald Reagan," Gorbachev replied. "Christian morality."
Now the last leader of the Soviet Union has spent half an hour on his knees at the tomb of St. Francis. From the London Telegraph:
Mikhail Gorbachev...has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.
Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.His arrival in Assisi was described as "spiritual perestroika" by La Stampa, the Italian newspaper.
"St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ," said Mr Gorbachev. "His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life," he added.
"We deem it the central revelation of Western experience," William F. Buckley wrote in 1960, "that man cannot ineradicably stain himself, for the wells of regeneration are infinitely deep."
My student at Notre Dame Law School, Julie Baworowsky, has posted on SSRN an interesting paper which she wrote for my Freedom of Speech course. The paper is called "From Public Square to Market Square: Theoretical Foundations of First and Fourteenth Amendment Protection of Corporate Religious Speech." It engages, among other things, the work of MOJ-er Rob Vischer, and touches on many of the conversations we've had here over the years about institutional autonomy and associational freedom. Check it out . . .
