Monday, December 14, 2009
Welcome to Kevin Lee!
I am delighted to welcome Prof. Kevin Lee, who teaches at Campbell, to our merry band of MOJ-ers. (Kevin's bio, CV, and the like are here.) Kevin brings to our conversation, among other things, the fruits of his advanced studies in religious studies and political ethics. Welcome aboard!
Is a presumption against war inconsistent with just war tradition?
Commenting on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, George Weigel laments what he sees as the decline of an authentic just war tradition in our popular discourse. He is especially concerned that a presumption against war seems to have taken root among those purporting to apply the just war tradition. Weigel writes:
So the notion that just-war analysis begins with a “presumption against war” (or, as some put it, with a “pacifist premise”) is simply wrong. The just-war way of thinking begins somewhere else: with legitimate public authority’s moral obligation to defend the common good by defending the peace composed of justice, security, and freedom. The just-war tradition is not a set of hurdles that moral philosophers, theologians, and clergy set before statesmen. It is a framework for collaborative deliberation about the basic aims of legitimate government as it engages hostile regimes and networks in the world.
Given his outspoken defense of the invasion of Iraq, I take George Weigel's interpretation of the just war tradition with a huge grain of salt. That said, he knows a lot more about the subject than I do. If a "presumption against war" is inconsistent with the Catholic intellectual tradition regarding war, then has the Vatican also lost touch with the tradition? It seems that a presumption against war is an obvious theme in statements by all of the post-WWII popes. Or check out various statements in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church -- e.g., para. 437 (calling for "the rejection of war as a means for resolving disputes"), para. 438 ("rejection of war"), para. 501 ("engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridicial questions"). Are they wrong? In past centuries -- when wars were limited and did not threaten the very existence of humanity -- perhaps there was no presumption against war. But I have a hard time supporting the suggestion that, in the 21st century, any moral or religious framework designed to facilitate serious thinking about war and the human condition should not include a presumption against war.
Uganda's proposed criminalization of homosexuality
Given the posts so far on this topic, MOJ readers may find this paper interesting:
"Perceptions of LGBT in Uganda and Africa"
STEPHEN KADUULI, Africa Leadership
Institute, York University
Email: [email protected]
LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Currently, there is a ‘tsunami’ of a debate raging in Uganda, in particular, and Africa, in general about LGBT. This paper delves into impressions of the Ugandan people and their leaders about the phenomenon, if one can call it that. Homosexuality, or LGBT, is still a taboo subject in many African societies. There was fallout in the Anglican Church over the ordination of gay priests as bishops in the worldwide Anglican Communion. In October 2009, a bill entitled the 'Anti-Homosexuality Bill' was tabled before the Ugandan parliament with the aim of legislating penalties for 'homosexual acts' and those who defend the rights of people who engage in sexual relations with people of the same gender. President Museveni said, “We used to have very few homosexuals traditionally. They were not persecuted but were not encouraged either because it was clear that is not how God arranged things to be.” A Ugandan Minister has been quoted saying that LGBT people are trying to impose a strange, ungodly, unhealthy, unnatural, and immoral way of life on the rest of our society.
On the flip side, gay groups in Uganda say the proposed law is not necessary and will only legalise discrimination. They call on government to respect people’s rights and fundamental freedoms, as prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Watch has accused the government of promoting state homophobia in Uganda and urged it to repeal of a colonial-era law against sodomy.
The debate is so intense it is bordering on extremism. The same scenario is playing out in many parts of Africa and one wonders if there is a possibility of finding a middle ground. There is talk of possibilities of aid being cut and an increase in the number of people seeking refuge in western capitals because they believe their rights are being denied.
[Downloadable here.]
The Real Inconvenient Truth
A Canadian journalist writes that debates about cap-and-trade subsidies, wind farms, and climate science are really missing the point: what the world needs desperately is to adopt China's one child policy. According to Diane Francis of The Financial Post,
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
As Rod Dreher points out, the one child policy is proving highly problematic for long-term social health, even in China.
The Moral Purpose of the State
This new book by Christian Reus-Smit should be of interest to MoJers.
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
Or, what we have here may be a failure to communicate. (Apologies to Cool Hand Luke.)
Robby's reference, in his post immediately below, to "the questions I [i.e., Robby George] have raised" worries me. In my book, I address, inter alia, a set of questions about the proper, and properly limited, role of religion in the politics and law of a liberal democracy. I had thought that Robby was interested in what I have to say in my book in response to the questions about religion in politics that I address there. But now I wonder: Whether the questions about religion in politics that I address in my book include the questions about religion in politics that Robby hopes to find addressed in the book, I do not know. That depends, of course, on precisely what questions Robby hopes to find addressed in my book. In any event, the refund offer is of the "no questions asked" variety!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
. . . or your money back!
Well, dear Michael, if you address the questions I've raised, I'm sure your answers will be clear. I just hope you address them (though judging from those glowing endorsements, I suppose I should consider 80 bucks a bargain whether you address them or not).
"I don't want to pay $80 and still be in the dark!" -- Robby George
Robby,
I no doubt have many, many problems, but clarity in articulating the positions I defend has not been one of them.
"Michael Perry is clearly one of our best and most prolific legal
scholars, and The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is one of his
finest books. Not the least strength of this volume is the way Perry
artfully performs what he commends to us. The thoughtful, challenging
arguments Perry offers teach us in the doing how Perry would have us
conduct our political arguments with one another." Milner S. Ball,
Harmon W. Caldwell Chair Emeritus in Constitutional Law, University of
Georgia
"This book is the capstone of Professor Perry's long and fruitful engagement with the difficult question of how religion should inform lawmaking in a liberal democracy. As a political liberal who belongs to a culturally conservative religion, I have found Professor Perry's work both intellectually enlightening and personally meaningful. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is an excellent work that forces one out of reflexive responses to religion in politics." Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University
"The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is a focused, original, and important contribution to the discussion of religion and liberal democracy. Perry focuses on two of the most controversial cases in current debate: abortion and same-sex unions; and he offers a theoretical account of liberal democracy that reframes the terms in which those debates should be conducted. The argument of the book is clear and compelling. --Robin W. Lovin, Cary M. Maguire University Professor of Ethics, Southern Methodist University
"This is vintage Michael Perry. He addresses a big, fundamental, and timely issue: What are the moral convictions that should govern legislation and policy in a liberal democracy? He discusses the topic with verve, clarity, wide scope, and astounding learning; and both formulates general rules and analyzes specific cases. If you have been unsettled by attacks over the past several decades on our form of government, The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is the book to read to quiet your doubts." Nicholas Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Yale University
Michael Perry has written a powerful defense of liberal democracy and human rights-a defense grounded on religious faith. He finds secular defenses wanting. Both for religious supporters of liberal democracy and human rights and for secular supporters, Perry's book is must reading. But the provocative chapters on such topics as religious freedom, abortion, same-sex unions, and the role of courts provide additional reasons to read this book." Lawrence A. Alexander, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego
"Michael Perry is widely recognized for his major contributions to our understanding of law, morality, and religion, and especially of the grounding, content, implications, and judicial enforcement of constitutionally entrenched human rights. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy should be of interest to every conscientious citizen." Richard George Wright, Lawrence A. Jegen Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law -- Indianapolis
"The literature on religion and public discourse and policy is now very considerable, and overwhelming American. Most of it has been written by philosophers and theologians. Michael Perry, however, makes a distinctive contribution in writing as an expert in constitutional law. This is a clearly written, logically organized, accessible, original book on an important and topical issue." Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford
"This book is the capstone of Professor Perry's long and fruitful engagement with the difficult question of how religion should inform lawmaking in a liberal democracy. As a political liberal who belongs to a culturally conservative religion, I have found Professor Perry's work both intellectually enlightening and personally meaningful. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is an excellent work that forces one out of reflexive responses to religion in politics." Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University
"The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is a focused, original, and important contribution to the discussion of religion and liberal democracy. Perry focuses on two of the most controversial cases in current debate: abortion and same-sex unions; and he offers a theoretical account of liberal democracy that reframes the terms in which those debates should be conducted. The argument of the book is clear and compelling. --Robin W. Lovin, Cary M. Maguire University Professor of Ethics, Southern Methodist University
"This is vintage Michael Perry. He addresses a big, fundamental, and timely issue: What are the moral convictions that should govern legislation and policy in a liberal democracy? He discusses the topic with verve, clarity, wide scope, and astounding learning; and both formulates general rules and analyzes specific cases. If you have been unsettled by attacks over the past several decades on our form of government, The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is the book to read to quiet your doubts." Nicholas Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Yale University
Michael Perry has written a powerful defense of liberal democracy and human rights-a defense grounded on religious faith. He finds secular defenses wanting. Both for religious supporters of liberal democracy and human rights and for secular supporters, Perry's book is must reading. But the provocative chapters on such topics as religious freedom, abortion, same-sex unions, and the role of courts provide additional reasons to read this book." Lawrence A. Alexander, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego
"Michael Perry is widely recognized for his major contributions to our understanding of law, morality, and religion, and especially of the grounding, content, implications, and judicial enforcement of constitutionally entrenched human rights. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy should be of interest to every conscientious citizen." Richard George Wright, Lawrence A. Jegen Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law -- Indianapolis
"The literature on religion and public discourse and policy is now very considerable, and overwhelming American. Most of it has been written by philosophers and theologians. Michael Perry, however, makes a distinctive contribution in writing as an expert in constitutional law. This is a clearly written, logically organized, accessible, original book on an important and topical issue." Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford
Nonetheless, Robby, I will be happy to refund your $80 upon request.
Michael
To Dear Michael from Dear Robby
Dear Michael:
You are quite wrong. I was being completely serious. If I'm being obtuse, I'm sorry, but I did not get your point and still don't get it. That's why I asked my questions. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you and I are in disagreement; but I can't say for sure until I know what the proposition is we're supposed to be disagreeing about. After all, every now and then we do happen to agree about something. If the answers to my questions are in your new book, then I guess I'll know them soon. I do hope they are there, though. I don't want to pay $80 and still be in the dark! I completely agree that questions about legitimate reasons for political action are contestable and, in fact, contested by reasonable people of goodwill. My own judgment, as you know, is that people should believe in natural law and act in the political sphere on the basis of the public reasons for action and restraint that are its principles. In a certain sense, I defend a more expansive version of Rawls's doctrine of public reason. At the same time, I think there are good public reasons for not disenfranchising our fellow citizens who are fideists, Humeans, Nietzcheans, and subscribers to other schools of thought that reject my ideas (or Rawls's or others') about public reason, or those who are pragmatists, utilitarians, or adherents of other schools of thought whose conceptions of public reason I believe are misguided. I certainly don't think there are grounds for disenfranchising fideists while not disenfranchising their secular first cousins, the Humeans, for example. But I don't know whether you do. I'll read the book in the hope of finding out.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
