It seems to me that we could think about the President's decision to veto the bill that would have limited the CIA to those interrogation techniques authorized by the 2006 Army Field Manual in (at least) two ways.
First, we could consider whether we agree with the President's view that "[t]he bill Congress sent . . . would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror" or whether, instead, we think that the techniques the bill would have banned are not, in fact, useful or necessary to protect Americans from terrorists. (Senator Kennedy noted, for example, that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear.")
I take it we all agree that the President is obligated to do what he can -- within the bounds of prudence and morality -- to protect Americans from terrorists. Do we also agree, though, that (a) few, if any of us, are qualified to resolve the debate over whether the techniques in question -- including waterboarding -- yield reliable, valuable results; and, in any event, that (b) the morality of the techniques in question does not depend on whether they yield reliable, valuable results? Or, do some of us think that the question whether a particular act is moral does, in fact, depend on the consequences of that act? Do those of us who believe that the President was wrong to veto this bill also believe that proportionalism -- once characterized by Fr. McCormick as the view that "an action is morally wrong when, all things considered, there is not a proportionate reason in the act justifying the disvalue [caused by the act]" -- represents an unsound approach to moral questions generally, or only to moral questions involving the treatment of detainees?
The second approach to the question, I suppose, would be to ask whether the various techniques that the bill would have banned are -- wholly and apart from our guesses about their usefulness, and wholly and apart from the question whether they are listed in the Field Manual -- immoral, because they cannot be reconciled with the treatment due a person -- any person -- made in the image and likeness of God. And, on this approach, could one that different answers might be warranted for some techniques (I have not seen the entire list) than for others?
UPDATE: Just to be clear: I am *not* suggesting here that different answers *are* warranted; again, I have not seen the full list of techniques. Some of the ones that have surfaced in news reports strike me, for what it's worth, as worthy of the same answer I think we should give with respect to waterboarding.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The L.A. Times has this story about a recent ruling by an appellate (state) court in California:
Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.
Advocates for the families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Enforcement until then appears unlikely, but if the ruling stands, home-schooling supporters say California will have the most regressive law in the nation. . . .
"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."
Phillip Long said he believes the ruling stems from hostility against Christians and vowed to appeal to the state Supreme Court. . . .
Thoughts? Predictions?
UPDATE: A reader writes:
. . . Although I haven’t read the actual ruling, my initial reactions are that this is not a case that homeschooling advocates would want to push too far. Just on the facts presented in the story, this family is obviously struggling in ways aside from schooling – they’ve had allegations of abuse, and this is a case initially filed by a guardian ad litem (or something similar).
I support homeschooling (and was homeschooled myself a couple of years) but this is not the type of homeschooling situation I would envision as the ideal – far from it, actually. Even though one gentleman comments that he thinks the ruling stems from hostility against Christians, I would say it could very easily be construed as being a decision favoring the best interests of the children. This might be a case in which homeschooling could be demonstrably detrimental rather than beneficial for the children, which would make the case hard to win either in and I am leery of saying “homeschooling at all costs for anyone who wants to.” If it were me pursuing a case like this, I would think a good, long time before making these people the poster children for homeschoolers everywhere.
In addition, while homeschooling is often seen as being a religiously-motivated, it is a fallacy that all homeschoolers are Christian. Many are not Christian, or even religious at all. From my homeschooling friends in the Twin Cities, I know of secular homeschooling co-ops here, and I’m sure that with a little research one could find similar organizations in California. Painting this as an “anti-Christian” ruling ignores the growing appeal of homeschooling outside Christian circles. It is too bad the reporter writing this story did not explore the demographics of homeschoolers a little more fully.
My prediction is that this ruling will not result in homeschooling witch-hunts in California. My bet would be that criminal charges would be low on most prosecutors’ priority lists. Until there is a definitive statement from the state supreme court or some sort of legislative changes to homeschooling regulations, I would predict things will remain status quo.
And, Joe Knippenberg has more information, here.
So -- following up on Michael's post -- I think that John Hagee is loathesome. (How could a Roman Catholic not?) And, I blogged a few months ago about the "troubling" fact that Gov. Huckabee (who, at the time, many Catholics seemed to find attractive) had no problem hanging out with Hagee, whom I called a "virulent and ignorant anti-Catholic polemicist" (which he is) who needs to get the word about "Catholics and Evangelicals Together." So, I certainly would rather Sen. McCain steer clear of him, too.
That said, two thoughts. First, let's be real: No one is going to insist that Sen. Obama disavow or condemn all of his prominent supporters -- I'm sure there are many -- who believe that the Catholic Church is a force for evil and . or a den of lunatics. So, the "McCain must disavow" business seems a bit opportunistic. (Again, I think he should distance himself from Hagee.) Everyone knows that McCain is not anti-Catholic (just like everyone knows that Obama does not hate Jews).
Next, no one should demand that candidates disavow supporters who believe that the Catholic Church's teachings are false. After all, this is what non-Catholics believe. If they didn't, one assumes they would be Catholics. To me, Hagee's anti-Catholic views are not (given that he is a Protestant minister) as objectionable as the anti-Semitic and other racialist views of, say, Louis Farrakhan. (My understanding is that there is nothing about being a Muslim that requires one to be a racialist or to traffic in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.)
Continue reading
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Sherif Girgis asks:
As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”
But do you mean it? . . .
You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:
1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?
2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?
3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?
If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law? . . .
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
This summer seminar, "The Moral Foundations of Law", sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton, might be of interest to MOJ readers who are law students:
The Witherspoon Institute is pleased to announce the first annual summer seminar on the Moral Foundations of Law, a comprehensive week-long program investigating the interaction among moral thought, legal theory, and the nature of moral legislation. Led by Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, in collaboration with Robert P. George of Princeton University and John M. Finnis of Oxford University, the seminar takes place from August 10 – 16, 2007 on the campus of the Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, N.J. Guest lecturers will include Judge Edith B. Clement (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) and Judge Edith H. Jones (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals).
Guided by its mission to promote public understanding of the principles of free and democratic societies, the Witherspoon Institute brings three of the United States’ and England’s leading legal minds to lead an intense discussion of some of the most profound moral and legal questions facing students in the top law school programs and political philosophy departments, including issues such as the compatibility of political constitutions with morals legislation, religious institutions, the institution of marriage, moral neutrality in law, legal positivism, and the legal and moral understanding of a right to privacy. Extensive readings from recent legal theory, chiefly from the analytical tradition, will accompany both seminars and directed discussions.
Here's a reminder about an excellen upcoming conference, whose subject -- church autonomy and religious freedom -- should be of interest to many MOJ readers.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Detailed information on this year's Religiously Affiliated Law Schools conference (at Boston College, on April 6-7), can be found here. Here's the overview:
Faith can spark professional formation and intellectual growth as well as spiritual and moral development. The Conference presentations and panels will center on the relationship between religion and a lawyer’s professional formation, that is, how faith can influence the growth of our students as lawyers and the development of our faculty members as scholars, teachers, and mentors. This two-day event should be of great interest both to faculty and to student service professionals.
