Pope John Paul II died six years ago today. Thank God for his life, work, and witness.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Remembering Pope John Paul II
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Allen on the Italian crucifix case
Here's John Allen, weighing in on the Lautsi case, which has already been mentioned several times here at MOJ. He writes, of the decision:
The outcome could recalibrate Catholic attitudes towards secularism at the gut level, providing a powerful boost for the “open door” approach. For bonus points, it’s also generated fresh ecumenical and inter-faith momentum … not bad for a day’s work. . . .
The decision represents a victory for the view that when faced with what seems like incomprehension and hostility, the best response is to make arguments rather than to hurl anathemas. Especially at a time when Benedict XVI has called for a “New Evangelization” in the West -- which sort of presumes an “open door” psychology -- that’s no small thing. . .
Now, I agree that arguments are to be preferred, as a vehicle for engagement, to anathemas, but -- with all due respect to Allen, who certainly knows the lay of the Church's land better than I do -- this comparison felt a bit forced to me, a bit aimed at a straw-man. It's not been my (limited) experience that many serious Catholics -- "conservative" or "liberal" -- insist that, no, best just to not engage and to instead "hurl anathemas." More "in play", it seems to me, is the disagreement between those who want to engage, in arguments (not anathemas), on certain sensitive / divisive / controversial issues with respect to which the Church's teachings are something of a scandal, and those who think that arguments about such matters should be shelved, and common ground sought elsewhere. It seems to me that the answer to this disagreement is (something like) "both"; that is, look for (through arguments, not anathemas), find, and enjoy common ground wherever it is to be had but also propose uncomfortable and challenging truths (again, in and through arguments).
Arizona bans race- and sex-based abortions
Story here. A constitutional-law-teaching friend of mine once (mischievously?) wrote an examination that involved evaluating a federal ban (one that, the exam stated, relied on Congress's power to "enforce" the 14th amendment's equal-protection requirement).
It strikes me that the law will probably not reduce by very many the number of abortions in Arizona. It does, however, I would think, have a symbolic / educational / pedagogical effect; it makes (some) people think about abortion differently, even though it will probably not limit any person's ability to obtain an abortion.
Vince Rougeau to be dean of Boston College Law School
It has been announced by Fr. Leahy that my colleague, and former MOJ-blogger, Vince Rougeau will succeed John Garvey as the Dean of Boston College Law School. Readers will certainly be familiar with Vince's writings, both popular and scholarly, regarding the intersection of Catholic Social Thought, law, and politics, including his recent book, Christians in the American Empire: Faith and Citizenship in the New World Order. Vince's departure is, of course, a loss for Notre Dame Law School, but all of us who care about the future of Boston College as an authentically and interestingly Catholic law school should see Fr. Leahy's choice as a promising sign, and wish Vince all the best.
School choice coming to Indiana
Indiana's House has passed what looks to be a meaningful, if small-scale, school-choice measure. (A number of legislators, as readers might know, had left the state for Illinois, in an effort to prevent this -- and other -- developments.) If the law passes, it will (of course) be challenged on constitutional (state and federal) grounds. It's sad, I think, that I regard it as entirely possible that a judge will yield to partisan temptations and invalidate the law. Still, no need for Puddleglummery, I suppose. This is good news.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
New Law Prof blog rankings
Paul Caron has them. MOJ continues to grow in traffic. So . . . thanks! And, tell your friends . . . I really want to catch the good folks at the "Wills, Trusts, and Estates" blog.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Regretting President Obama's lack of support for choice and opportunity in DC
The White House -- despite the occasional encouraging sign of openness to education reform -- continues to oppose even D.C.'s small experiment in school-choice for low-income kids in D.C. Sad.
UPDATE: The Washington Post gets it right.
We understand the argument against using public funds for private, and especially parochial, schools. But it is parents, not government, choosing where to spend the vouchers. Given that this program takes no money away from public or public charter schools; that the administration does not object to parents directing Pell grants to Notre Dame or Georgetown; and that members of the administration would never accept having to send their own children to failing schools, we don’t think the argument is very persuasive. Maybe that’s why an administration that promised never to let ideology trump evidence is making an exception in this case.
Glenn on "Contrasting Models of State and School"
For those who are interested in (as we all should be) the nexus of education, religion, civil-society, and family, Charles Glenn's work is invaluable. Here is his latest, "Contrasting Models of State and School":
Through a historical study of two very different pairs of European countries, Glenn illuminates the debate surrounding educational freedom and a State-controlled model. 'School Choice' is one of the most hotly debated topics in educational policy. International comparison makes it possible to gain perspective on the issue, and this book profiles - historically and in current policies - two countries which give most support to parental choice (The Netherlands and Belgium) and two others which maintain a strong State role in controlling education (Germany and Austria). Charles L. Glenn has read extensively in Dutch, French, and German sources, and brings to his analysis several decades of experience as a government official in education. By comparing the Dutch model of educational freedom with the similar though distinct Belgian model, and contrasting it with the German and Austrian models - showing how these differences took shape in the 19th century and persist today - Glenn illuminates the policies behind these models, and clearly lays out what we can learn from their strengths and weaknesses. This is essential reading for policy specialists concerned with models of school autonomy versus government control, and the debates over parental choice of schools. . . .
By the way, if you don't own his "Myth of the Common School", you are really missing out. I love the original cover:
Aidan O'Neill on "squaring equality with religion"
Relevant, I think, to the conversation about the Court's decision to weigh in on the ministerial exception's foundations and content is this post, by Aidan O'Neill, at the U.K. Human Rights Blog. Commenting on the (to me) striking refusal of many in the U.K. to distinguish invidious discrimination from religious exercise, O'Neill observes:
[T]he application of the norms of anti-discrimination law, even in the face of religious based conscientious objection, is interpreted by the new religious Dissenters as the State’s imposition of a required outward conformity to a new form of religious settlement: no longer Anglicanism, but a secularism which would banish religiously motivated action from the public square and confine religious belief wholly to the internal forum. . . .
"Lift High the Cross": More on Lautsi
Here's Prof. John Witte (Emory), writing about the recent Lautsi decision, at Huffington Post. A bit:
The Lautsi case echoes many familiar arguments that the United States Supreme Court has used over the past three decades to maintain traditional displays of crèches, crosses and Decalogues on government property. While not entirely convergent in their religious symbolism cases, the American and European high courts now hold six teachings in common. . . .
And . . . what, did you think he wouldn't write about this? . . . here's Stanley Fish:
In these columns I have often remarked that religion-clause jurisprudence is characterized by contortions that would be the envy of Houdini. But nothing in American jurisprudence is as contorted in its reasoning as a recent decision . . . by the European Court of Human Rights. . . .
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
