The legalization of same-sex marriage poses a direct threat to the civil liberties of religious Americans who oppose homosexuality, a distinguished panel of Constitutional law scholars said last night (Sept. 9, 2008) at the Newseum, in Washington, D.C. The event, co-sponsored by the Freedom Forum, celebrated the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s release of a new book, Same-Sex Marriage: Emerging Conflicts.
The law professors, though they had differing views of same-sex marriage itself, universally urged policymakers and citizens to consider carefully the rights of all parties in the conflict. Each of the speakers have contributed essays to the Becket Fund’s book, which is edited by David Laycock of the University of Michigan; Robin Wilson, law professor at Washington & Lee University; and Anthony Picarello, formerly at the Becket Fund and now general counsel at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. . . .
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Religious Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage: Emerging Conflicts
" . . . they'll believe anything."
Someone (probably G.K. Chesteron) once said (something like) "what happens when people stop believing in God is not that they believe nothing, but that they'll believe anything." So it seems:
. . . [W]hile increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn't. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students. . . .
Saturday, September 20, 2008
And so it begins . . .
A "duty to die" if you are "demented"?
"I'm absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.
"Actually I've just written an article called 'A Duty to Die?' for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself."
[British moral philosopher Lady Warnock] went on: "If you've an advance directive, appointing someone else to act on your behalf, if you become incapacitated, then I think there is a hope that your advocate may say that you would not wish to live in this condition so please try to help her die.
"I think that's the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you'd be licensing people to put others down."
More here. (HT: Althouse).
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
More on Obama's Illinois abortion votes
Following up on Rob's link to the excerpt -- dealing with Sen. Obama's opposition in Illinois to that state's born-alive-infant-protection law -- from Doug Kmiec's new pro-Obama book: A useful supplement to Kmiec's account is this short report -- which confirms that Sen. Obama misrepresented his record -- from (the non-partisan) Factcheck.org. Also worth reading is this detailed account and analysis of the controversy by the National Right to Life Committee. This account is not consistent with the one set out in the full excerpt from Kmiec's book, which is available at Steve Waldman's BeliefNet site.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Update on extracurriculars . . .
The folks at America have invited me to contribute occasionally to their Election blog (which I mentioned here). And, I posted some thoughts, here, at the First Things "On the Square" blog, about (what I believe to be) Doug Kmiec's recent mis-reading of Cardinal George's statement on abortion and the common good.
There is also going on, at the Commonweal blog, and post-and-comments thread -- initiated by our own Eduardo Penalver -- about (among other things) the responsibility of political actors to respect democracy by speaking honestly and fairly and the question whether those who some commenters call "pro-life activists" should, given their commitments, be willing to go to war, or tear down the constitutional order, to end abortion. Plus ca change . . .
Sunday, September 14, 2008
More education good news
In keeping with my recent love-note to Notre Dame's Alliance for Catholic Education -- and to prove that, despite the occasional teasing, we here at MOJ have plenty of love for the Society of Jesus -- check out this column by George Will about the Cristo Rey schools. (HT: Ryan Anderson, at First Things.)
Friday, September 12, 2008
A quick response to Michael
In response to Michael's recent post on the election: He is right, certainly, that "many faithful Catholics" do not agree that "the only reasonable choice for a faithful Catholic to make is to vote Republican." And, for what it's worth, I think I've always been pretty clear in my own posts that I do not believe faithful Catholics must vote Republican. I do think they should, all things considered, but it seems clear to me that reasonable, faithful people can disagree with each other about what reasonable, faithful people should do.
It seems a separate question, though, whether the current position of Sen. Obama specifically, and the Democratic Party generally, on abortion is one that a "faithful Catholic" should, or even may, endorse. Michael quotes a recent NCR article, which includes this:
According to a recent Associated Press story, Biden has said in the past that he is “prepared to accept” church teaching on when life begins, but at the same time he believes that Roe v. Wade “is as close as we’re going to be able to get as a society” to a consensus among differing religious and other views on the subject. We suspect that view is held by a lot of ordinary Catholics and more than a few bishops, albeit privately. So the dispute becomes more over political strategy than church teaching. How to attack the abortion problem from the political stump in the political arena -- where compromise is the coin of the realm -- is far different from pronouncing from the pulpit.
Here, Biden is wrong, I think. First, even if it is true that, in a society like ours, we are not going to achieve consensus on abortion regulations, this does not mean that "Roe v. Wade" is the best we can do. Roe v. Wade, again, makes it impossible for us, as a society, to work together towards consensus, or even just compromise. Even if we think that Catholics can support, as a matter of political strategy, a permissive abortion-regulation regime, it does not follow that such Catholics should not care about Roe's wrong-ness. (To be clear: I am not saying that the question whether the Constitution in fact protects an abortion-right is one that Catholic teaching can or should answer.)
Second, it is crucial that any Catholic -- or any pro-life voter -- who is trying to understand what is at stake, with respect to abortion, confront and read carefully the proposed Freedom of Choice Act. This proposed law -- which Sen. Obama strongly supports -- is not at all (to use NCR's words) a "compromise."
UPDATE: More here.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
For September 11 . . .
Here is the prayer offered by Pope Benedict during his visit last Spring to Ground Zero:
O God of love, compassion, and healing,
look on us, people of many different faiths and traditions,
who gather today at this site,
the scene of incredible violence and pain.
We ask you in your goodness
to give eternal light and peace
to all who died here --
the heroic first-responders:
our fire fighters, police officers,
emergency service workers, and Port Authority personnel,
along with all the innocent men and women
who were victims of this tragedy
simply because their work or service
brought them here on September 11, 2001.We ask you, in your compassion
to bring healing to those
who, because of their presence here that day,
suffer from injuries and illness.
Heal, too, the pain of still-grieving families
and all who lost loved ones in this tragedy.
Give them strength to continue their lives with courage and hope.We are mindful as well
of those who suffered death, injury, and loss
on the same day at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Our hearts are one with theirs
as our prayer embraces their pain and suffering.God of peace, bring your peace to our violent world:
peace in the hearts of all men and women
and peace among the nations of the earth.
Turn to your way of love
those whose hearts and minds
are consumed with hatred.God of understanding,
overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy,
we seek your light and guidance
as we confront such terrible events.
Grant that those whose lives were spared
may live so that the lives lost here
may not have been lost in vain.
Comfort and console us,
strengthen us in hope,
and give us the wisdom and courage
to work tirelessly for a world
where true peace and love reign
among nations and in the hearts of all.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
"Treasure A.C.E."
Here's a short piece I did, for National Review Online, celebrating the 15th anniversary of the Alliance for Catholic Education. (I'm a fan.) A taste:
Should non-Catholics care? Sure, the success of A.C.E. might prove a consolation in these hard times for fans of the Fighting Irish, but does it really matter?
It does. It is worth remembering that, despite the closings and declining enrollments, America’s Catholic schools make up the largest private-education system in the world. These schools are, as the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, observed recently, not just a crucial component of the Church’s own mission, but also — for all that they do and have done for so many — a “national treasure.” Millions of American children — often the poor, immigrants, and minorities — have been formed, educated, and inspired by Catholic schools. Today, these schools and their teachers do heroic work in providing education, hope, safety, opportunity and values to vulnerable and marginalized children of all religions, ethnicities and backgrounds.
Often in the face of bias and bigotry, Catholic schools have, over the last century-and-a-half, relieved the state of enormous financial burdens while conferring on the political community immeasurable civic benefits. Indeed, America’s Catholic schools represent perhaps one of the most dramatic donations of time, talent, and treasure to the political community’s common good that the nation has ever seen. (Some day, when a politician complains about school-voucher programs take away “public” money for “private” schools, I’d like a bishop to present that politician with a bill for services rendered.)
We hear a lot these days about “social capital,” and about the anchoring institutions that are so important to the health of communities and the formation of character. It is important to a free society that non-government institutions thrive. Such institutions enrich and diversify what we call “civil society.” They are like bridges and buffers that mediate between the individual and the state. They are the necessary infrastructure for communities and relationships in which loyalties and values are formed and passed on and where persons develop and flourish. In our history, few institutions have played this role like Catholic schools.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
More "theocracy!" silliness
Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, has penned a screed in which he compares Sarah Palin to Muslim fundamentalists -- "What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick" -- and charges that "the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers." Whatever. I don't think it runs afoul of my sincere resolve to resist contributing to this blog becoming just another political site to note that the piece is full of falsehoods and, well, junk. Putting aside the wrong done by the charge to Gov. Palin, and putting aside also one's preferences in the upcoming election, Cole's rant is of a piece with the "They're all theocrats!" meme that has so irritatingly cluttered up public discourse in recent years. Nathanial Peters, at First Things, has a better answer to Cole's question.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
