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.

Monday, July 21, 2008

More on the Quinnipiac poll

Rob links (here) to a new poll, by Quinnipiac University, showing, among other things, that a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in "all" or "most" cases.  This might be a bit Panglossian, and I don't mean to underestimate the significance of the fact that 20 percent believe abortion should be legal in "all" cases, but . . . I would like to see the results of follow-up questions to the "legal in most cases" answerers.  I suspect -- I'm not sure, but I suspect -- that most of these people, like most Americans, mistakenly assume that (a) Roe is more restrictive than it really is and (b) that a high percentage of abortions are procured in cases involving rape, incest, serious health threats to the mother, serious "fetal abnormalities", etc.  That is, I wonder if follow-up questions to the "in most cases" people would reveal that, in fact, many of these people believe that abortion should be regulated to a (much?) greater extent than it now is?

Another question in the poll, by the way, is relevant to the discussion / debate we've been having about Sen. Obama's proposed changes -- which would limit the ability of participating institutions to hire-for-mission -- to Pres. Bush's faith-based initiative.  So, the poll reports this result: 

37. Do you think that these faith-based organizations that receive federal money should be able to discriminate in favor of hiring people of their own faith?

                        Tot     Rep     Dem     Ind     Men     Wom     Wht     Blk


Yes                     16%     27%      9%     15%     19%     13%     17%     14% No                      77      67      84      77      75      78      76      79 DK/NA                    7       7       7       8       6       9       7       7
Yikes.  But, isn't it reasonable to think that this number is at least related to the power of the word "discriminate"?  No one tells pollsters they are for "discrimination," I assume.  But, what if the question were, "do you think that religious organizations that provide social-welfare services should have the right, even if they receive some public funds, to retain their religious identity and independendence"?  I think / suspect / hope that most people would say "yes."  And, *this* is what is at stake in the "discrimination" debate.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

More on the Pope, the environment, and human dignity

Following up on Michael's recent link to the Times article on the Pope's recent remarks on protecting the environment, here's a bit from the Pope's remarks at World Youth Day (HT:  Robert Imbelli at Commonweal):

My dear friends, God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable. Our world has grown weary of greed, exploitation and division, of the tedium of false idols and piecemeal responses, and the pain of false promises. Our hearts and minds are yearning for a vision of life where love endures, where gifts are shared, where unity is built, where freedom finds meaning in truth, and where identity is found in respectful communion. This is the work of the Holy Spirit! This is the hope held out by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to bear witness to this reality that you were created anew at Baptism and strengthened through the gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation. Let this be the message that you bring from Sydney to the world!  (italics added)

Can Catholics be "conservatives"?

At the Vox Nova blog, Jonathan has this interesting, very Burkean, post, "What is Conservativism?"  In response (in the comments box) "Morning's Minion" insists, citing Pope Benedict XVI, that Christians "cannot be true conservatives in the Burkean sense" because they live in history, and have a duty to build the Kingdom of God.  And the conversation continues.  Check it out.

The discussion is, I think, relevant to our "Catholic Legal Theory" project, if only because the legal enterprise and legal mindset is so often seen as -- and, in many ways, is -- "conservative".  So, what should this adjective mean for us -- how should we understand it -- who aspire to "do law" as Catholics?

Obama and the teacher-unions

Michael Perry is right:  Because the teacher-unions -- which is not, of course, to say "teachers" -- are misguided on so many questions, it is possible to disagree with them -- even to "stand up" to them -- without endorsing school-choice.  (That said, it is not possible, in my view, plausibly to present oneself as being committed to fairness and opportunity for low-income children if one categorically opposes even modest, pilot school-choice experiments.)  So, keeping in mind that the unions are likely less opposed to merit pay than to voucher experiments, it might well count as "stand[ing] up" to the teacher-unions to suggest, as Sen. Obama (correctly) did, that "districts could give teachers a salary increase, including if they serve as mentors; if they learn new skills, and if they 'consistently excel in the classroom.'"  (That this suggestion is controversial in some quarters tells us something about the priorities of those quarters, but that is another matter.)

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Obama: No vouchers

I guess Sen. Obama's much-remarked "move to the center" has some limits.  After suggesting, in February, that he was not necessarily hostile to school choice, he has now made it clear, in a speech to the American Federation of Teachers, that he opposes school vouchers (including the Washington D.C. program, which enjoys bipartisan support, including from the District's mayor).  In my view (for what *that* is worth), he should have listened to Jonathan Alter (no right-winger), in this recent Newsweek piece, and taken on the teacher unions.  It's time to turn the page.

Alveda King to NAACP: Protect Life!

Bill McGurn's column, here, is worth reading.

"I remember when I was pregnant and considering a third abortion," she says. "I went to Daddy King [her grandfather and Martin Luther King's father]. He told me, 'that's a baby, not a blob of tissue.' Unfortunately, 14 million African-Americans are not here today because of legalized abortion. It's as if a plague swept through America's cities and towns and took one of every four of us."

A new anti-death-penalty organization

A little while back, I blogged about a new anti-death-penalty organization, based in Indiana, called INCase.  Here's a news story about the organization, which was started by a recent graduate of the University of Notre Dame.  I like the organization's "conservative" approach, i.e., urge citizens to reject the death penalty as a wasteful, failed government program.  (Disclosure:  I'm going to be on the Board.)

Monday, July 14, 2008

Some Bastille Day reading . . .

Conor Cruise O'Brien on E. Burke, here.

"We Shall Not Weary, We Shall Not Rest"

Here is Fr. Richard John Neuhaus's closing address -- "We Shall Not Weary, We Shall Not Rest" -- at the National Right to Life Committee's convention.  A bit:

That is the horizon of hope that, from generation to generation, sustains the great human rights cause of our time and all times—the cause of life. We contend, and we contend relentlessly, for the dignity of the human person, of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, destined from eternity for eternity—every human person, no matter how weak or how strong, no matter how young or how old, no matter how productive or how burdensome, no matter how welcome or how inconvenient. Nobody is a nobody; nobody is unwanted. All are wanted by God, and therefore to be respected, protected, and cherished by us.

We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person.

Against the encroaching shadows of the culture of death, against forces commanding immense power and wealth, against the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child, against what St. Paul calls the principalities and powers of the present time, this convention renews our resolve that we shall not weary, we shall not rest, until the culture of life is reflected in the rule of law and lived in the law of love. . . .

. . .  We go from this convention refreshed in our resolve to fight the good fight. We go from this convention trusting in the words of the prophet Isaiah that “they who wait upon the Lord will renew their strength, they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not be weary, they will walk and not be faint.”

The journey has been long, and there are miles and miles to go. But from this convention the word is carried to every neighborhood, every house of worship, every congressional office, every state house, every precinct of this our beloved country—from this convention the word is carried that, until every human being created in the image and likeness of God—no matter how small or how weak, no matter how old or how burdensome—until every human being created in the image and likeness of God is protected in law and cared for in life, we shall not weary, we shall not rest. And, in this the great human rights struggle of our time and all times, we shall overcome.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

A strange Facebook group

I was directed today to a Facebook group called "CST is the best thing that's happened to politics since Thomas Jefferson".  Hmmm.  Can I agree with the first part and remain cool to our limousine-Jacobin third President?  =-)