The Volokh Conspiracy's Todd Zywicki (George Mason) and I made a friendly wager (here and here) on last night's basketball game between George Mason and Notre Dame. As Stewie Griffin would say, "victory is mine." Go Irish. And, to paraphrase Fr. Ted Hesburgh, "God does not care who wins the game. But, His mother does."
Friday, March 21, 2008
Fear the Leprechaun
Thursday, March 20, 2008
An Easter thought
From Pope Benedict XVI's Spe Salvi:
Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus's Passion. Hence in all human suffering we are joined by one who experiences and carries that suffering with us; hence con-solatio is present in all suffering, the consolation of God's compassionate love—and so the star of hope rises.
Wow! To paraphrase Bill McGurn, this is a "pope who knows how to pope."
"God and Man in China"
Bret Stephens writes, in the Wall Street Journal:
The violent protests in Tibet that began last week and have since spread across (and beyond) China are frequently depicted as a secessionist threat to Beijing. But the regime's deeper problem in the current crisis is neither ethnic nor territorial. It's religious. . . .
Check it out . . .
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
More on the California homeschooling decision
Several of us blogged, a few weeks ago, about the decision of a California state court involving homeschooling. Over at "On the Square", Joe Knippenberg has this detailed post and update. A taste:
In the end, there’s no good substitute for a law that explicitly acknowledges and civilizes the right of parents to educate their children at home, subjecting homeschooling to reasonable regulation to see that children are prepared for productive lives as citizens. I have no doubt that the vast majority of homeschooling families could produce results that are more than satisfactory.
I also have no doubt that a law generally providing for homeschooling—religious or secular—is preferable to an arrangement that requires judges or educational administrators to examine a family’s religious beliefs in an effort to determine whether they justify a free-exercise exemption from compulsory attendance laws. More than anything else, we don’t want access to legal rights or privileges dependent upon a secular official’s theological or doctrinal determinations. That sounds too much like establishment.
My advice to California homeschoolers is to return to the first principles of republican self-government. That means recurring first to the politically responsible branches and above all to the legislature. Make the case for amending California’s compulsory education law to accommodate the rapid growth—in the state and across the nation—of homeschooling. Build coalitions. In the face of likely opposition from teachers’ unions, it won’t be easy. But think of it as a lesson in active and responsible citizenship. Your kids will appreciate it.
"Corporate Religious Speech"
My student at Notre Dame Law School, Julie Baworowsky, has posted on SSRN an interesting paper which she wrote for my Freedom of Speech course. The paper is called "From Public Square to Market Square: Theoretical Foundations of First and Fourteenth Amendment Protection of Corporate Religious Speech." It engages, among other things, the work of MOJ-er Rob Vischer, and touches on many of the conversations we've had here over the years about institutional autonomy and associational freedom. Check it out . . .
A "double standard"
I agree with Rob that Christians ought not to regard it as out-of-bounds for a Christian minister to call attention to America's sins, faults, and failings. Anyone who is moved by, say, Stanley Hauerwas (as I am) is not in a position to be "shocked, shocked!" that Jeremiah Wright thinks America risks damnation. So, in the abstract, I think the answer to Rob's question -- "Is it more . . . acceptable for pastors to 'damn' America for abortion than it is for racism?" -- should be "no."
That said, I believe that, in the contemporary context, our Nation's practices and premises with respect to its abortion-on-demand regime demand more clearly and forcefully call out for condemnation than our practices and premises with respect to racial justice. Racist-slavery is, of course, our Constitution's original sin, and I'm not suggesting -- so, please, no e-mails suggesting that I am -- that there is no longer unjust discrimination in this country, or that there are not pressing challenges facing us as we try to undo the harms caused by our original sin. But, the fact is, we are trying, and everyone agrees we should be. On the other hand, most of our powerful elites are of the view that the license to kill an unborn child is inseparable from, and is a dimension of, human dignity and freedom; they are, in other words, deeply committed to the preservation and justification of a great evil. This is (obviously, I hope) not true with respect to racism. Thank goodness.
Wright is offensive (to me) not because he is offended by racism. He (we) should be offended by racism. He is offensive to me precisely because it is not clear to me that he is (consistently) offended by racism, and because he trafficks in absolutely crazy and destructive conspiracy theories.
Bobbleheads at Ten Paces!
My friend Todd Zywicki (George Mason), of the Volokh Conspiracy, clings to the view that the George Mason's men's hoops team -- lead by "Gunston" -- will defeat my Notre Dame Fighting Irish in the first round of the men's NCAA Tournament. Here is Todd's challenge, which I accept.
To paraphrase Fr. Ted Hesburgh, "God does not care who wins this game. But, his mother does."
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Bell tolls for Blaine(s)?
I received this notice from the religious-liberty litigators at the Becket Fund:
Friday, March 14, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is scheduled to present oral argument in St. Louis, MO, in support of Dan and Amy Pucket and their two children who were kicked off of Hot Springs, South Dakota school buses because they attended a religious school.
"The Supreme Court has said that the Blaine Amendments were 'born of bigotry' and should be 'buried now.' It's time for the states to get out their shovels and start digging. It is unconscionable that governments are still enforcing discriminatory nineteenth century laws against people of faith," said Roger Severino, legal counsel at the Becket Fund.
Severino will be presenting the argument for the Puckets before the federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Washington-based Becket Fund is a public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. It is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and interfaith.
The case of Pucket v. Rounds concerns the right of the Pucket children to be bused from their rural home to a Lutheran elementary school. The state refused citing South Dakota's Blaine Amendments. The Blaine Amendments were passed at the height of
nativist anti-Catholic agitation in the 1880s and are used today to bar religiously-affiliated organizations of all sorts from receiving any form of government aid in South Dakota, and dozens of other states.
Prof. Friedman has a link to the oral argument, here. Here is the Becket Fund's litigation backgrounder on the case. And, for some earlier discussion among Rick Hills, me, and others, on the Blaine Amendments, judicial review, and federalism, see these posts and the attached comments.
Should the 9-11 plotters be executed?
Bainbridge weighs in, here. Lots of links are included to others' views.
Monday, March 17, 2008
HBO's "John Adams"
Last night, I watched the first episode -- "Join or Die" -- of the HBO mini-series, "John Adams." (The series is based on the popular David McCullough biography.) Paul Giamatti -- an excellent actor, in my view -- plays Adams, and Laura Linney plays Abigail Adams. I've been looking forward to the series ever since I first heard about it and, so far, I'm not disappointed.
Last night's episode focused on Adams's role as a defense lawyer for British soldiers charged in connection with the 1770 Boston Massacre. There were more than enough stirring "rule of law" and "importance of zealous counsel for the accused" moments to justify recommending the episode to first-year law students. The episode ended with a dramatic speech on "liberty" by Adams (in a church), and with his departure for (I gather) the First Continental Congress. So far, the show seems to be doing a good job of highlighting Adams's struggle to keep-in-balance his "conservative" (that is, his unease-with-revolution) instincts with his "liberty" commitments. I'm looking forward to more!
Of particular interest to MOJ readers, in connection with John Adams, might be this essay, by John Witte, which compares the views of Adams and Jefferson on religion.
At precisely the same time that Jefferson was at work defending his 1779 Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom for Virginia, John Adams was at work drafting the Massachusetts Constitution. “It can no longer be called in question,” he wrote, that “authority in magistrates and obedience of citizens can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion,” without succumbing to “the monkery of priests or the knavery of politicians.” It also could no longer be called into question that peace and justice required the state to guarantee religious liberty to all. The best constitutional formula to attain these two goals, Adams concluded, is for the state to balance the freedom of many private religions with the establishment of one public religion.
On the one hand, every society must protect a plurality of peaceable private religions—the rights of which are limited only by the parallel rights of other religions and the duties of the established public religion. The notion that a state could coerce all persons into adherence to a common public religion was for Adams a philosophical fiction. Persons would make their own private judgments in matters of faith. Any attempt to coerce their consciences would only breed hypocrisy and resentment.
Moreover, the maintenance of religious plurality was essential for the protection of civil society and civil liberties. “Checks and balances, Jefferson,” Adams later wrote to his friend at Monticello, “are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every Species of Christians would persecute Deists, as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unbalanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, Human nature!”
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
