Mirror of Justice

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Larmore on Taylor

Charles Larmore' has a review, in the latest New Republic, of Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age." Larmore finds the book "deeply disappointing". Larmore is, no doubt, smarter and more learned than I am, but I was not "disappoint[ed]" (even if I was exhausted) by Taylor's book at all. It is fascinating and provocative read.

Now, Larmore criticizes Taylor for writing a "book written by a Catholic for Catholics." But, A Secular Age is not such a book. (Though, even if it were, so what?). I'm not even sure what Larmore is getting at by labelling Taylor an "ardent" Catholic (I don't know anything about the "ardor" of Taylor's faith), but I'm pretty sure that (contrary to Larmore's suggestion) Taylor's attention -- which Larmore contrasts with Weber's approach -- to the connections between our world and that of medieval Christianity is not merely a function of this "ardor".

Larmore also points out some "slip-ups" in Taylor's book, but then proceeds to report, matter of factly -- but incorrectly -- that the "separation of church and state" "emerg[ed] in the seventeenth century after one hundred years of religious war in Europe."

Anyway . . . here is a link to a bunch of posts, over at the "Immanent Frame" blog, on Taylor's book. Check it out.

Monday, March 31, 2008

"Young Americans Revere Monogamy"

By Rick Garnett

Those crazy "millennials" . . . it turns out they "have a reverence for national institutions, traditions and family values" and "overwhelmingly . . . support monogamy, marriage, the U.S. Constitution and the military[.]" Who knew?

"Conversion and Conflict"

By Rick Garnett

Next Monday (April 7), I'll be giving a lecture as part of a program, "Conversions and Conflict: An Interreligious Discussion of Evangelization", at the University of St. Thomas's Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law and Public Policy. I'm looking forward to spending time with my MOJ-colleagues at St. Thomas and, perhaps, any MOJ readers in the Twin Cities. My remarks will be based on this paper, which I wrote a little while back, called "Changing Minds":

Proselytism is, as Paul Griffiths has observed, a topic enjoying renewed attention in recent years. What's more, the practice, aims, and effects of proselytism are increasingly framed not merely in terms of piety and zeal; they are seen as matters of geopolitical, cultural, and national-security significance as well. Indeed, it is fair to say that one of today's more pressing challenges is the conceptual and practical tangle of religious liberty, free expression, cultural integrity, and political stability. This essay is an effort to unravel that tangle by drawing on the religious-freedom-related work and teaching of the late Pope John Paul II and on a salient theme in the law interpreting the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Running through and shaping our First Amendment doctrines, precedents, and values is a solicitude for changing minds - our own, as well as others'. Put differently, the Amendment is understood as protecting and celebrating not just expression but persuasion - or, if you like, proselytism. There are, therefore, reasons grounded in our Constitution and traditions for regarding proselytism and its legal protection not as threats to the common good and the freedom of conscience, but instead as integral to the flourishing and good exercise of that freedom. This same solicitude for persuasion and freedom pervades the writing of the late Pope, who regularly insisted that the Church's evangelical mission does not restrict freedom but rather promotes it. The Church proposes - thereby inviting the exercise of human freedom - she imposes nothing. The claim here, then, is that proposing, persuading, proselytizing, and evangelizing are at the heart of, and need not undermine, not only the freedoms protected by the Constitution, but also those that are inherent in our dignity as human persons.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Kalscheur on the Ministerial Exception

By Rick Garnett

MOJ-friend and -veteran Greg Kalscheur (Boston College) has a must-read paper on SSRN, "Civil Procedure and the Establishment Clause: Exploring the Ministerial Exception, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and the Freedom of the Church." Here is the abstract:

What sort of defense is provided by the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims? The ministerial exception bars civil courts from reviewing the decisions of religious organizations regarding the employment of their ministerial employees. While the exception itself is widely recognized by courts, there is confusion with respect to the proper characterization of the defense provided by the exception: should it seen as a subject matter jurisdiction defense, or as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim? This Article argues that articulating the right answer to this question of civil procedure is crucial to a proper understanding of the role that the ministerial exception plays as a constitutional protection for the religious freedom of churches and other religious institutions. The Article explores the ministerial exception to antidiscrimination law as a case study of the extent to which the U.S. Constitution adequately protects the freedom of the church. The ministerial exception is best understood as a subject matter jurisdiction defense, and getting the right answer to this civil procedure question is not just a matter of citing the right procedural rule in the defendant's motion to dismiss. Instead, careful attention to this question leads to a better understanding of the foundations of our constitutional order. When courts clearly and consistently treat the ministerial exception as a limitation on their subject matter jurisdiction, they make a powerful statement about the foundations of limited government - they affirm the penultimacy of the state. Yet, even though the jurisdictional approach to the ministerial exception does provide crucial protection for one dimension of institutional religious freedom, the Article suggests that the jurisdictional approach alone cannot provide an adequate constitutional foundation for robust protection of the freedom of the church.

As MOJ readers know, I believe the questions Fr. Kalscheur is asking are at the heart of the religious-freedom conversation. Any reactions to the paper?

Boycott the Olympics?

By Rick Garnett

Should political communities committed to what my friend Michael Perry calls "the morality of human rights" boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics in China? If not, why not? Some thoughts here.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Evil

By Rick Garnett

This is gut-wrenching. (ht: dotCommonweal).

A "free vote" on life?

By Rick Garnett

An interesting story is developing in the United Kingdom, regarding the "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill" under consideration in Parliament. Here is a bit:

Fertility expert and television scientist Lord Robert Winston has accused senior members of the Catholic church of lying over the controversial embryo research bill after an Easter weekend which has seen it condemned from pulpits up and down Britain.

A coalition of charities and support groups representing scientists, doctors and patients suffering from a wide range of serious conditions has written to every MP urging them to back the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which will allow the creation of part-human, part-animal embryos for medical research.

At the weekend Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien said the bill would allow "grotesque procedures" which would "attack the sanctity and dignity of human life".

Read more here. Apparently, part of the drama concerns the question whether Catholic MPs will be given a "free vote" by the Labour Party:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, leader of the Roman-Catholic Church in England and Wales, yesterday became the most senior clergyman to insist that Labour MPs should be granted a free vote.

He urged Catholic MPs - including Cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy - and those of other faiths to be guided by their religious convictions.

So far, Labour has refused to follow Parliamentary tradition on issues of conscience and allow MPs to vote as they wish on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, though it has in the past given free votes on issues such as hunting, reform of the House of Lords and fluoride in drinking water.

Instead, MPs will be whipped - meaning they could face disciplinary action if they refuse to support the Bill. . . .

UPDATE: As a reader reminds me, it's not just Catholics and Catholic clergy who are worried about the Bill. Here is Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright's Easter sermon on the issue.