At the Findlaw site, constitutional-law expert Prof. Doug Kmiec (who is, as he discloses, an advisor to Gov. Romney) has an essay called "Religion and Public Life: Why it's a Good Choice for Presidential Candidate and Governor Mitt Romney to Specifically Address the Topic of his Faith." Prof. Kmiec writes:
Romney's faith is actually his greatest strength. It defines him as a person of integrity in interpersonal dealings, of service to the nation and community, and of fidelity to his family. These are things that cannot be said about every candidate in the race.
I agree that not "every candidate" for the President is a "person of integrity." But, I admit, I have some reservations, or at least some questions, about the statement that Romney's faith is "actually his greatest strength" because it "defines him as a person of integrity[.]" If this means that, in Gov. Romney's specific case, what has formed him to be the "person of integrity" that he is is, in large part, his religious faith (which means, I hope, more than just his subjective dispositions but includes his formation in a particular religious tradition), fine. But, is the statement intended to suggest that what identifies, or marks, or "defines" a candidate, as a general matter, as a "person of integrity", is his or her "faith"? Such a statement would strike me as more problematic. And, I suspect that Prof. Kmiec does not intend this latter suggestion -- to suggest that integrity and faith wax and wane together. There is a danger, nonetheless, that some will hear it.
Prof. Kmiec also writes: "Romney's faith is also the best refutation of the flip-flopper indictment. Being a member of a faith that is constantly under public scrutiny necessarily invites one to check one's presuppositions at the door." The claim, as I understand it, is that Romney's religious affiliation, and his experience of being an outsider, has made him the kind of open-minded person who can (and has) change his mind when convincing reasons for doing so are presented. This is interesting; is it plausible? Don't get me wrong: I much prefer Gov. Romney's current position on, say, abortion to ones that he has endorsed in the past. And, I certainly hope the reason for the change is that, out of open-mindedness, he heard and embraced new, better, pro-life arguments (and not that he came to appreciate the fact that, particularly with Mayor Guiliani in the race, a pro-life governor of Massachusetts was more likely to have success in Republican primaries than a pro-choice governor of Massachusetts.)
With respect to the inescapable "Kennedy Speech" comparisons, Kmiec writes:
Kennedy, however, had a special burden that Romney does not bear.Catholicism, prior to the Second Vatican Council, saw itself as entitled to be recognized as a state religion. . . .
The Mormon Church has never claimed that it is entitled to be an established faith of the United States. Moreover, there is no sense in which the Mormon Church could be said, through its leadership, to be seeking to control public decision-making. Indeed, quite the opposite, it would be entirely appropriate for Governor Romney to point out that his faith has been a persecuted faith.
It is not clear to me, actually, that the Roman Catholic Church has not been, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a persecuted church, at some points in our history. Obviously, the Catholic Church has not been "persecuted" for a while, but I'm not sure the LDS church has, either. Nor is it obvious to me that the LDS church has not, in the past, and in particular contexts, taken the position that it may and should be "established", in some sense. (Am I wrong about this?)
Finally, Kmiec writes, by way of criticism of Kennedy's speech:
. . . Kennedy made it clear that in presidential decision-making, he would not be taking instruction from the fathers of the Church. That is as it should be. What was uncomfortable, however, was Kennedy's suggestion that his faith could somehow be separated from his most important life commitments, from caring about the less advantaged to pressing forward on civil rights. Romney, unlike Kennedy, should not hide the virtues of his faith under a bushel.
I share this reservation about Kennedy's speech. But then, Kmiec says, "Governor Romney is calling America to its better self. Whether the speech he will make about his faith ultimately benefits the Governor as a candidate will depend more upon us than on him -- that is, upon whether we are prepared to judge a person not by the religious book he reads, or by how often he calls himself a Christian leader, but rather by the quality of his words and his work." It seems a fine line: On the one hand, Romney's faith is his "greatest strength," and its "virtues" should not be hidden "under a bushel." On the other hand, Americans are challenged to judge Romney "not by the religious book he reads", but by the "quality of his words and his work."
In any event . . . read the whole thing. And, I'll look forward to hearing (and to others' reactions to) "the Speech."
Monday, December 3, 2007
As everyone not living under a rock now knows, researchers have managed to reprogram human skin cells and make them "pluripotent." The discovery of these "induced pluripotent state" (iPS) cells is, I gather, huge. It has, my law-and-science colleage, O. Carter Snead, observed, "solved one of the most vexed issues at the intersection of science, ethics and public policy."
“The nation was morally and politically divided on the proper role of the government in regulating human embryonic stem cell research,” Snead said. “Now, researchers have developed the means to pursue their scientific goals in a manner that is both scientifically superior to prior approaches and ethically acceptable to all sides of what seemed to be an intractable debate about scientific freedom, the goal of alleviating suffering, and respect for human life. Their work is a model of ethical scientific research for a morally pluralistic society.”
In two recent posts, though -- one at Concurring Opinions and one at Balkinization -- Prof. Russell Korobkin seems not to agree.
Continue reading
Thanks to Michael for posting Martin Marty's recent "Sightings" essay, "Catholic Concerns." Marty asks, among other things, "why care?" about the crisis some perceive for American Catholicism. A few months ago, in a similar vein, I wrote:
In and around our nation's big cities, hundreds of Catholic parishes, schools and hospitals are consolidating and closing. Many of these institutions have long provided the foundation — as well as provided for the faith — of urban neighborhoods and immigrant communities. . . .
Why should we care?
For starters, urban Catholic 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. Similarly, Catholic hospitals have long cared for underserved and disadvantaged people in both urban and rural areas, and helped to fill glaring gaps in the availability of health care. It is too easy to take for granted these and similar contributions to the common good. We should remember that, as these institutions fold, the burdens on and challenges to public ones will increase.
We might also care about the closings for slightly more abstract but no less important reasons. In a nutshell: 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.
Catholics and non-Catholics alike can appreciate the crucial role that these increasingly vulnerable "mediating associations" play in the lives of our cities. Harvard University Professor Robert Putnam and others have emphasized the importance of "social capital," both to the health of political communities and to the development of engaged citizens. In America's cities, it has long been true that neighborhood churches and schools have provided and nurtured this social capital by serving as places where connections and bonds of trust are formed and strengthened. As Joel Kotkin writes in his recent book, The City: A Global History, healthy cities are and must be "sacred, safe and busy." If he is right, Catholic parishes, schools and hospitals help make America's cities great. . . .
Sunday, December 2, 2007
(Self-promotion alert).
Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather will host a panel discussion on "Church and State: Separation Anxiety" at 6 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 8, in the Rockefeller College Common Room. The event will be taped for broadcasting on "Dan Rather Reports," his program on the HDNet television network. It is open to the public, but tickets are required. Doors will open at 5 p.m., and final seating is at 5:30 p.m. The panelists will discuss the history of the religion clauses of the First Amendment and give their opinions about how government should interact with religion. The panelists are:
• Christopher Eisgruber, University provost and the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values. Eisgruber is the co-author, with Lawrence Sager, of "Religious Freedom and the Constitution."
• Richard Garnett, associate professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Garnett teaches courses in criminal and constitutional law and served as a clerk to former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
• Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee, an organization serving 14 Baptist denominations that advocates free exercise of religion and minimal state connection to religious institutions.
• Michael McConnell, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and one of the country's foremost constitutional law scholars.
Tickets for students, faculty and staff with Princeton University ID cards will be available starting Monday, Dec. 3, at the Frist Campus Center ticket office. The office is open weekdays from noon to 6 p.m. Campus community members may bring up to two PUIDs, but can only pick up one ticket per PUID. Tickets for the general public, with a limit of two per person, will be available from noon to 2 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 6, at the Richardson Auditorium box office while quantities last. The discussion is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the Program in Law and Public Affairs, the University Center for Human Values, the Center for the Study of Religion and the Department of Religion.
More information here.
Friday, November 30, 2007
In recent days, a number of us have been discussing the contraception-subsidy proposal, which Michael P. called to our attention. And, our examination of this proposal has touched on, among other things, the law-culture-conduct dynamic. On this matter, MOJ-friend Robby George sends in the following for our consideration:
Crimes involving the use of date rape drugs are increasingly common on campuses and elsewhere. The overwhelming majority of such crimes are committed by men on women. Evidently, the drugs are widely available and easily obtained. There doesn't seem to be much that can be done to prevent men who want the drugs from obtaining and using them.
Rape is in itself a horrible crime--always and everywhere. It is, in my opinion, an intrinsically--and gravely--evil act. Where date rape drugs are used, the offense has additional dimensions. Often the drugs are themselves harmful and dangerous. Victims can suffer lasting injuries and even die as a result of ingesting the drugs.
Now, imagine that a date rape drug is synthesized which is just as effective as the ones sold on the street, but (in itself) considerably less dangerous to victims. The risk of injury and death is substantially lower. The cost, however, is higher.
How should we respond to a proposal to make the new, safer drug available through the University Health Center on a subsidized and confidential basis? (Let us stipulate that there is no legal impediment to doing so. Imagine that the drug is sometimes legitimately distributed over the counter as a "sleep aid.") The argument is that, though we don't want to encourage date rape and the use of date rape drugs, we need to be realistic. Date rape happens and will continue to happen despite our ongoing efforts to discourage it; date rape drugs are going to be used; we are not going to be able to turn back the clock and makes these drugs cease to exist. Let's at least lessen the potential harm to women who are victimized.
Speaking for myself, I would firmly say no to this proposal. But, then, I am a moral conservative. I don't think we should subsidize and facilitate immoral behavior, even for the sake of preventing injuries and deaths a certain number of which will surely occur as a result of date rapists using unsafe drugs instead of the safer drugs they would have been using had we subsidized them and made them available.
What I don't know is whether liberals would agree with me as to whether the proposal should be rejected. My sense is that most liberals do not share the general principle on the basis of which I myself would reject the proposal. But, perhaps other grounds are available to them for rejecting it. I don't think they would want to say that by subsidizing and distributing safer date rape drugs we are tacitly approving date rape. They might, however, say that the policy of subsidizing and distributing the drugs would result in more date rape by contributing to a cultural climate in which date rape comes to be regarded by potential perpetrators as acceptable conduct. But, then, liberals generally don't reason this way about, say, promiscuity when considering whether to subsidize and distribute contraceptives on campus. Most liberals I talk with seem to believe that the policy of distributing birth control pills, placing condoms in jars in student lounges, etc. doesn't affect students' beliefs about sexual morality or alter their conduct. The amount of promiscuous sex will remain the same, they say, whether or not condoms are subsidized and distributed; the only difference is whether the sex will result in unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases that might have been prevented had condoms been used.
In any event, let's assume, just to test the principle, that we have reliable studies to show that easy access to cheap safer date rape drugs does not increase the number of date rapes in general or the number of date rapes in which date rape drugs are used. It does not turn non-rapists into rapists. The rate of date rape snd the use of date rate drugs will remain the same. The only difference will be that victims will have a lower incidence of injury and death from the drugs themselves.
On this assumption, what is the correct answer from the liberal point of view? Should a University Health Center subsidize and distribute the safer date rape drugs or not?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Here's a link to a Pew Forum event that might be of interest:
The Pew Forum invited former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson to discuss his new book, Heroic Conservatism, with Forum senior advisors Michael Cromartie and E.J. Dionne Jr. and a select group of journalists. Gerson was challenged to define “heroic conservatism” and critique the Bush administration’s record on implementing the "compassionate conservative" philosophy Gerson himself helped to craft. Offering criticism and praise to both parties, Gerson lamented the lack of Republican support for domestic social justice issues, while calling on all Americans, in spite of the difficulties in Iraq, not to give up on a “moral internationalism.”
Prof. Bob Cochran called my attention to this bit, where Gerson characterizes "heroic conservatism" in this way:
“[H]eroic conservatism” is a rejection of libertarian and traditional anti-government ideology in favor of [a] conservatism of the common good, influenced by Catholic social thought. It tries to take the principles of solidarity with the poor and the weak seriously, both in issues of poverty and race, and pro-life issues, in my view, but also take the principle of limited government seriously, trying to both respect and strengthen mediating institutions as a primary goal of policy. . . .
The tradition that I’m arguing [for] here is quite different. Catholic social thought and the mainstream of the Judeo-Christian tradition has argued that social outcome is an actual outcome for the poor and the weak, that the justice of the society is determined by the treatment of its weakest members. That does change, to some extent, your goals and motivations in politics. I don’t think it makes you a liberal, but I think it’s different than some other conservative approaches.
CROMARTIE: By the way, if I could just say as a fellow Protestant, there is such a thing as Protestant social thought, you would agree. You keep talking about Catholic social thought.
GERSON: Yes, [Abraham] Kuyper and others; there are plenty of models that evangelicals have. But there are so many evangelicals like me who went to Capitol Hill and were casting around for a construct to explain what it means to be a person of conscience in politics, and [we] came to John Paul II and the tradition of Roman Catholic social thought. It has a consequence; it leaves you with a philosophy, from my perspective, because it doesn’t dictate a political ideology. That’s not what this tradition does. But it does dictate certain social goals of justice.
It’s left me believing that it’s possible, and arguing that it’s possible, to be a supporter of free markets and also believe in helping African kids—(inaudible)—to be a social conservative, which I am, and to believe in confronting these durable problems of race and poverty in this country that I think neither party has been particularly responsible on. So, yes, there are Protestant traditions, but the predominant one in our time has been a Catholic tradition.
. . . for the recusant-history buff or Jesuit-fan (or blogging law prof) on your list? Your search is through!
A book bound in the skin of an executed Jesuit priest was to be auctioned in England.
The macabre, 17th-century book tells the story of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot and is covered in the hide of Father Henry Garnet.
The priest, at the time the head of the Jesuits in England, was executed May 3, 1606, outside St. Paul's Cathedral in London for his alleged role in a Catholic plot to detonate 36 barrels of gunpowder beneath the British Parliament, an act that would have killed the Protestant King James I and other government leaders.
Readers might be interested in an upcoming one-day conference, to be held on January 5 in New York City, on Christian Legal Theory co-sponsored by the Law Professors' Christian Fellowship and the Lumen Christi Institute (an academic institute based at the University of Chicago).
Speakers include First Things' Richard John Neuhaus and Harvard's Bill Stuntz on "What's Right and Wrong with the Christian Right," Vanderbilt's Carol Swain and Oklahoma's Michael Scaperlanda on "Christian Responses to Immigration Reform," and Notre Dame's Paolo Carrozza, Pepperdine's Roger Alford and NYU's Jeremy Waldron on "Christian Perspectives on International Institutions." Lastly, Judge Michael McConnell will deliver an address with the provocative title "Asking Muslims to be Moderate."
For more info, go here.
