Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Friday, July 9, 2010

"In Defense of the Suburbs"

By Rick Garnett

Regular MOJ readers know that I, and a number of MOJ-friends, are interested in questions of urbanism, and of the connection between the built environment and authentic Christian community.  That said, check out this post, "In Defense of the Suburbs", by James Poulos:

. . .The suburbs aren't perfect. No type of residential institution can perfect us. And none can ruin us -- only we can do that.

We restless Americans can ruin ourselves with our restlessness. But we know that we are never really at home in the world, at the same time that we know all of America, in the most important way, is our home. We Americans move constantly, and it is our relocation and our picking up and putting down stakes that gives the suburbs their true character. Some suburbs can be cold, anonymous, unfeeling -- like some cities and rural areas. I can attest however that some suburbs are among the warmest, most neighborly places on earth: even if you are a new arrival, even if you are a stranger, even if you are only passing through. Our suburbs reflect -- because they have created, and manage to maintain -- a brilliantly American way of pulling strangers constantly in motion out of the narrowness of their individual peregrinations and into a broader public life. If you do not like the suburbs, I suspect it is because you do not like the American propensity, deeper than even custom and habit, to move, and move, and move, and move.

But that is us. Even with families, that is us, although families -- as I can also attest -- inspire American hearts and minds to settle down in a way as consonant as possible with the flourishing of those families. No matter the depths of our love for our families, it is a democratic love that rightly places the destiny of our children above any aristocratic love for the soil. It's not that the two cannot be reconciled for long stretches of time. Assuredly they can, and assuredly there are plenty of places in America where we can find and achieve such lives in concert with the like-minded. But that is an option, not a rule of nature, and it is not at the heart of the American character. Precisely because we are not, in any Aristotelian sense, here to stay, our suburbs are.

Thoughts?

From Michael

By Rick Garnett

Michael has kindly posted something "for Rick" written by Gianni Vattimo.  I'm afraid, though, I'm in the position of the person who opens a gift but is not quite sure what it is.  I'd be grateful to Michael if he would help me to appreciate fully his present by explaining it, in his own words.  I'd also like to hear more about whether, and why, in Michael's view, what Vattimo writes is correct.  (What the latter writes does not move me to think that my own "take" on Ratzinger's "relativism" talk is not better than his.)  Paragraphs like this do not inspire confidence (on my part):

[I]nvectives against relativism may well be inspired by a secret nostalgia for youth, or perhaps I mean adolescence. . . .  Perhaps it is not coincidental that both John Paul II and (though a bit less, it seems) Benedict XVI turn their attention so regularly from us prudent and more skeptical elders toward the uncontrollably zealous young. . . .

Neither does this:

 If we genuinely believed what Cardinal Ratzinger told us about truth, about helping others accept the same truths as Catholics do, we would have to obstruct by any means the propagation of false theories (through censorship) and enact laws in contravention of natural human rights (rights that the church now maintains). We would need laws against the free exercise of Protestant and non-Christian practices, against the display of non-Christian religious symbols, against the education of non-Catholic children in non-Catholic schools, against construction of mosques, synagogues, temples, Protestant chapels.

No, we wouldn't. 

The Dalai Lama is wrong

By Rick Garnett

So argues Stephen Prothero (Boston University) here:

. . .I know that persons of goodwill are supposed to pretend that the world's religions are different paths up the same mountain. To say otherwise is to invite religious warfare and to label yourself illiberal. But we can do better than pretend pluralism. True pluralism does not insist on remaking Islam in the image of Christianity or Christianity in the image of Islam. It recognizes the deep diversity across the great religions and inside each of them. . . .

But God is not one. Or to put it more carefully, the world's religions differ on matters as central as the mathematics of divinity. Many Buddhists affirm zero gods, and many Hindus affirm many. Moreover, the character of divinity varies widely from god to god. No infant would mistake Hinduism's Kali for Christianity's Christ. Why should we?

Perhaps I am missing something, but I have yet to find a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire. And as long as we insist on the dogma that all religions are essentially the same we are bound to imagine that all religions are essentially like our own. This approach blinds us to the unique beauty in each religion, and prevents us from making sense of religious conflict worldwide. . .

For Rick

By Michael Perry

[An excerpt from Gianni Vattimo's introduction to the symposium I referenced in  an earlier post.  (On Gianni Vattimo, here.)]

Several contributions to this symposium question the definition of relativism that the homily implies. But if Ratzinger’s intention had been precision of philosophical vocabulary, he would surely have achieved it. He was not referring to philosophical relativism so much as to vaguer social phenomena that cluster around the adage “everything’s relative.” His reference was to kinds of liberal tolerance for the other’s “lifestyle” that can easily become interest in, fascination with, or attraction to it, then participation or conversion. His special objection, judging by tone, was less to permanent conversions than to temporary ones — temporary, that is, until something more fascinating, attractive, and fashionable comes along.

It is this vaguer sort of relativism that, in introducing this symposium, I want briefly to address. I have only one question to raise: is relativism, as Ratzinger’s homily depicts it, really so great a risk for civilization, for religion, for social cohesion? I mean, is it as great a risk as other risks with which (qua risk) it is in competition? In particular, I wonder if the laid-back, somewhat noncommittal, to-each-his-own, I’ll-try-anything-once attitude of the pope’s relativists is anything like so dangerous as the enthusiasm that certainty inspires. Take the fervor of the Crusaders (“God wills it”), the zeal of the American “theo-cons” exporting democracy to Iraq, the scientistic certainty with which Hitler organized the extermination of “inferior” races (“for the betterment of humanity”) — none of these was a consequence of any loss of faith in truth or timeless values....

[I]nvectives against relativism may well be inspired by a secret nostalgia for youth, or perhaps I mean adolescence. Oswald Spengler, in his Decline of the West, theorized that civilizations are creative when young (falling in love, producing epic poetry, thirsting for battle). As civilizations age, they lose their surging force and at best grow in girth, declining into imperialism. Perhaps it is not coincidental that both John Paul II and (though a bit less, it seems) Benedict XVI turn their attention so regularly from us prudent and more skeptical elders toward the uncontrollably zealous young.

Continue reading

Vischer on the CLS case

By Rick Garnett

Rob has an excellent essay on the CLS case ("Diversity and Discrimination in the Case of the Christian Legal Society") up at Public Discourse.  He writes (among other things) that:

Put simply, the case is a lesson in the legal norms surrounding dangerously amorphous concepts such as “diversity” and “discrimination,” and is an example of how those concepts can contribute to a robust, thick conception of the common good . . . or not. There are central questions that do not even appear to be on the radar screens of universities, courts, or other decision-makers that are shaping the course of these conversations: Is “discrimination” always bad? If diversity is an important value in our society, where does associational diversity rank? Does our framework of liberty include the right to exclude? The factual history and legal analysis of Martinez leave us to wonder whether we even have the resources and inclinations as a society to engage these questions, much less to draw meaningful distinctions among types of discrimination.

Standing up for associational freedom need not crowd out the legitimate place that anti-discrimination norms hold in a society that has admirably labored to remedy past injustices toward, and continuing marginalization of, certain segments of society—including gays and lesbians. At the same time, anti-discrimination norms can corrode the core beliefs that animate associational life.  . . .

Our struggle to define and demarcate “discrimination,” to identify the sort of diversity that is conducive to a vibrant, participatory, and just society, and to figure out how formal legal norms can support these projects is primarily a political inquiry, not a constitutional one. The Martinez Court’s holding has pushed the constitutional dimension further from view, and the Court prudently recognized that its decision is not the final word, explicitly cautioning against confusing the advisability of the law school’s policy with its constitutional permissibility. The next challenge is clear: we must think seriously about how to help deepen our public discourse about discrimination and diversity to include recognition that associational diversity is a key component of religious and moral liberty, and that even if a university now has the right to make all groups accept everyone, it is a right best left unexercised.

J'agree.

A Canon Law conference of interest

By Rick Garnett

On August 3 & 4, the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in LaCrosse and Archbishop Raymond Burke are hosting a "Canon Law Conference for Canonists and Civil Attorneys,"  One of the speakers is my friend and colleague,Fr. John Coughlin, who is an excellent scholar and a beloved teacher and priest at Notre Dame.  For more information, go here. 

Some thoughts on the "Dictatorship of Relativism"

By Rick Garnett

I am late weighing in to the discussion about then-Cardinal Ratzinger's use of the term "dictatorship of relativism".  It seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, that the term is helpful and insightful.  To be sure, as Michael P. and Bob have noted, one wants to distinguish "relativism" from "not embracing the moral truth as I understand it."  But surely we should hesitate before thinking that Ratzinger -- a very, very learned and intelligent man -- is not sensitive to this distinction.  (It seems a safe, even if rebuttable, rule of thumb -- one that owes nothing to piety or clericalism -- to operate on the basis of the assumption that people as smart as Ratzinger do not make obvious mistakes in his thinking.)

I know that Michael said, a few days ago, and maybe he hasn't, but I certainly have.  That is, I have met many people who at least claim to believe that "morality is subjective" or that "right and wrong depend entirely on one's own not-evaluable-by-outsiders assessment of costs and benefits in a particular situation."  Is there anything wrong with calling the content of such beliefs "relativism"?  I don't think so.

And so, what is the "dictatorship of relativism"?  It refers -- helpfully, I think -- to the present-day phenomenon of deploying such beliefs -- and, in particular, of public officials' deployment of such beliefs -- in order to avoid engaging with, to marginalize, and even to silence, those who believe that there are, in fact, moral truths that have a claim on our assent because they are true, and not merely because we like their implications.

More on CLS v. Martinez

By Rob Vischer

I've written a short essay for the Witherspoon Institute's "Public Discourse" website about the Christian Legal Society case.  Here's an excerpt:

So if the significance of Martinez cannot be explained away as the enforcement of a neutral open membership requirement or as a straightforward government funding case, what are the case’s lessons? Put simply, the case is a lesson in the legal norms surrounding dangerously amorphous concepts such as “diversity” and “discrimination,” and is an example of how those concepts can contribute to a robust, thick conception of the common good . . . or not. There are central questions that do not even appear to be on the radar screens of universities, courts, or other decision-makers that are shaping the course of these conversations: Is “discrimination” always bad? If diversity is an important value in our society, where does associational diversity rank? Does our framework of liberty include the right to exclude? The factual history and legal analysis of Martinez leave us to wonder whether we even have the resources and inclinations as a society to engage these questions, much less to draw meaningful distinctions among types of discrimination.

"Winter's Bone"

By Michael Perry

Last year, several of us recommended some films, including "The Hurt Locker", which went on to win the Academy Award for best film, and "Precious".

I haven't seen "Winter's Bone", but after reading this review, I'm eager to see it.

'Winter's Bone' is a backwoods masterpiece

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 6:19 a.m.

The sober little indie gem "Winter's Bone" is a stellar alternative to the studio dreck that has given Hollywood a case of the box-office ho-hums right now.

The tale of an indomitable Ozark Mountain teen determined to hold together her family and home, "Winter's Bone" is raw, real, understated, fiercely intense and surprisingly gentle and decent amid bursts of ferocity in the rural crime culture where the story's set.

In barely an hour and a half, writer-director Debra Granik immerses the audience in a rich, almost alien trek through a cloistered backcountry that outsiders rarely see.

Roughhewn clothing, earthy slang, roots music, gloriously bleak landscapes, the graphic lesson a sister teaches her young brother on how to skin and gut a squirrel for frying - the detail captured in "Winter's Bone" is remarkable.

As a youth on a desperate search to learn the fate of her wayward, lawless father, Jennifer Lawrence delivers a breakout performance as stirring as those of 2009 Academy Awards nominees Gabourey Sidibe ("Precious") and Carey Mulligan ("An Education").

With a screenplay by Granik and producing partner Anne Rosellini, who crafted an extremely faithful adaptation of Daniel Woodrell's taut novel, the film casts Lawrence's Ree Dolly adrift among some very bad kinfolk in her severe corner of rural Missouri.

Stuck raising her younger brother and sister and tending to her almost catatonically depressed mother, 17-year-old Ree learns her absent father put up the family homestead and surrounding timberlands to post bond on his latest arrest for cooking crystal meth.

Now her dad has dropped out of sight with a court date at hand, leaving the Dollys in danger of eviction.

With slow, inexorable momentum, Ree trudges the countryside, staring down distant relations in the region's criminal underbelly for answers about her father.

Each exchange Granik orchestrates is its own wonderful drama. Ree appealing in fearful boldness for help from her father's menacing, drug-abusing brute of a brother, Teardrop (John Hawkes). Ree spitefully dismissing a ruse by one of her dad's associates as he tries to throw her off the trail. Ree, wise beyond her years and growing wiser with every encounter, sizing up and cutting down the sheriff (Garret Dillahunt) who locked up her father in the first place.

It's a hopeless quest from which Ree never relents.

"Ain't you got no men that could do this?" asks Merab (Dale Dickey), the consort of the local crime kingpin that Ree pursues for answers at risk of her own life.

"No, ma'am, I don't," Ree plaintively replies.

The language and action of "Winter's Bone" are simple, the weight and meaning profound. There are no hillbillies, hicks or rubes in this backwoods tale. This is high drama filled with nobility, savagery and everything in between.

Lawrence, who co-stars with Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster in the upcoming comedy "The Beaver," is a quiet force of nature as Ree, and the bond the actress forms with Hawkes is both hopeful and heartbreaking.

Director Granik has a history of capturing breakout performances. Her first film, 2005's "Down to the Bone," did similar duty for Vera Farmiga.

Hawkes, who played the Jewish lawman turned shopkeeper on TV's "Deadwood," exudes ornery meanness as Teardrop, whom the actor also imbues with a sense of honor and duty that is oddly uplifting in a story and surroundings as desolate as this.

Yet hope is at the core of "Winter's Bone," in the way Ree nurtures her siblings, tends her ailing mama, and maintains a sisterly bond with a childhood friend (Lauren Sweetser). As nasty a hand as she's been dealt, Ree has the backbone to take it.

One of the best films to come out of the Sundance Film Festival in the last decade, "Winter's Bone" won the top prize there for U.S. dramas last January, the same award "Precious" earned the year before.

"Precious" went on to great success at the Oscars and other Hollywood honors.

"Winter's Bone" is a nearly flawless film and deserves similar consideration from awards voters - particularly for Lawrence and Hawkes' performances and Granik's great directing achievement.

"Winter's Bone," a Roadside Attractions release, is rated R for some drug material, language and violent content. Running time: 100 minutes. Four stars out of four.

A cynical thought about the DOMA decision

By Rick Garnett

Michael P. calls our attention (here) to a decision by a federal trial-court judge in Massachusetts invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  According to that judge, "[t]he federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment." 

"[O]ffends the Tenth Amendment"?  Hmmm.  A number of us who contribute to MOJ teach or know a bit about "Constitutional Law", and I think I can report without fear of contradiction that law professors who believe that the Tenth Amendment has any judicially enforceable substantive content are (very) few and far between.  I also believe it is safe to say the this decision will be cheered by many commentators, journalists, and law professors who do not believe that the Tenth Amendment has any judicially enforceable content -- and who, in fact, have probably derided the few Rehnquist Court decisions that suggested otherwise.

And this observation reminds me of the conversation we had on MOJ a few weeks ago (see Patrick's intervention, for example, here) about whether it is ever appropriate for judges to (in effect) lie in order to achieve policy outcomes they regard as just.  

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive