Prof. Ed Edmonds (Notre Dame) passes on this, from ZENIT:
Catholic Professors Discussing Plurality Online
Internet Congress Ends March 3
PARIS, FEB. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- In an online international seminar, professors are debating the challenges faced by Catholic universities in a culturally and religiously pluralistic world.
The event is the fifth forum of the International Catholic Association of Institutions of Educational Sciences (ACISE), which will end March 3.
The seminar is entitled "Intercultural Dialogue in Education: Practical Experiences and Theoretical Points of View."
Bart McGettrick, a participant and former chairman of ACISE, told ZENIT that the online international congress is important because it "is useful for professors in Catholic universities to be in communication."
He said that there are "both common issues and values across the Catholic communities, as well as very different ways in which these are reflected in practice."
The former principal of St. Andrew's College of Scotland, and dean of education at Glasgow University, added: "The social, cultural, political and economic environments of each country offer opportunities to show how Christian values have a relevance to modern society and thought.
"It is a duty of educators to be open to these ideas and to share experiences both for ourselves and for others."
According to McGettrick: "The Church does have a duty to have an 'intellectual voice.' This should be heard by the wider public as part of contemporary thinking.
"If the Church does not do this the ideas and values of the marketplace become dominant and loud.
"We need to live in times when we can grow from out roots and reach to a world that currently lacks strong leadership."
He continued: "All around there is confusion, weakness and lack of ethical courage.
"University professors have a duty to provide some of that leadership and this seminar should provide some confidence in doing so."
Scott Horton has a long post, over at Balkinization, on William Wilberforce, the anniversary of Parliament's vote to abolish the slave trade, and the role of religion in politics. Here is a bit:
Wilberforce mustered many powerful arguments against the slave trade. At first, he avoided denunciations of the slave traders, and instead appealed to their humanity and inherent sense of justice. Throughout the Napoleonic Wars, Wilberforce was also a persistent advocate of the doctrine of humane warfare and raised his powerful voice repeatedly for the humane treatment of all prisoners taken in time of war. He also mobilized the emerging humanitarian law doctrine of protection for prisoners to oppose the slave trade. A large part of the West Africans impressed into bondage and shipped across the sea to be sold were, he pointed out, actually prisoners taken in warfare on the African continent. As such, he argued, they were entitled to humane treatment which could not be squared with the revolting conditions found on board of the slave trading ships. This shows the close, mutually reinforcing relationship between humanitarian law and human rights law that has continued to this day.
For Wilberforce's campaign, opposition to torture was the critical element. Given Biblical texts which explicitly or implicitly condoned the Peculiar Institution, it was difficult to frame a theological attack on slavery per se. But torture was another matter. The cruel abuse of a human being held in captivity was accepted by Wilberforce and most of his colleagues as an offense against Divine Law. Consequently the slave trade was thought a far more vulnerable target than slavery itself. In Wilberforce's great opening speech of 1789, frequently cited as the most important parliamentary address delivered in that memorable era, he dwelt heavily on the physical conditions of the slave ships: how slaves were stripped naked, bound and shackled, packed into the holds of the ship like sardines in a can, subjected to unbearable fluctuations of heat and cold, given inadequate water and food, deprived of sanitation. In such conditions the slaves screamed in agony, many calling out to be killed to put an end to their misery. And very many, by some reckonings most, expired in the process. Wilberforce's contemporaries readily accepted this thesis: that torture could not be permitted, even torture of slaves whose humanity was doubted. It is curious that today, two centuries later, the notion of slavery is a nonstarter, but torture seems to be accepted as fair grounds for debate. There can be no doubt that William Wilberforce would be appalled to make this discovery.
William Wilberforce may be something of an unwanted model for some of today's human rights advocates. He was an Evangelical Christian and, moreover, a Conservative. He sat for decades as a Tory MP for a Yorkshire constituency in Parliament, and his success comes at least to some extent from his close friendship with William Pitt, the youngest prime minister in Britain's history. But these are, I think, among the traits that make Wilberforce such an important figure for us today. He demonstrates the universality of the human rights message and its appeal across partisan and philosophical boundaries. He demonstrates that a political conservative who builds from traditional religious values, who embraces the joys of private property, who advocates a restrained government of limited powers, has every reason to advocate the cause of human rights. He demonstrates that there are and always were compassionate conservatives - men and women who truly earned this label.
How might Wilberforce's example, and success, inform the pro-life movement?
This piece describes Sen. Brownback as a "bleeding heart right-winger," noting his positions on aid to Africa, Darfur, and immigration, among other things. I wonder, how close is a "bleeding heart right winger" to a member of the "Seamless Garment Party," often discussed here at MOJ?
Erstwhile John Edwards staffer Amanda Marcotte has some bracing thoughts about abortion to share. (I am sure John Edwards is relieved not to have to defend them):
To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value. When a woman chooses abortion, she's not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal. She is probably thinking about her family's well-being and yes, her own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called "selfish" by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female. In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance. If I got pregnant, I wouldn't even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that abortion would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.
Michael links to Ada, Cohen's complaint about the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys. For what it's worth, the complaint strikes me as misplaced. These U.S. Attorneys were nominated by this President, and serve in the Executive Branch of his administration. President Clinton, remember, fired every single GOP-appointed U.S. Attorney -- except one -- when he came into office and, quite understandably, replaced them with his own nominees. Is there politics at work here? Of course. And?
This is worth a read. Fr. James Schall asks about the role of law and politicians in protecting human life. In particular, he thinks about the impact that abortion's "legality" has on people's views about its morality.
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice released its Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom: Fiscal Years 2001- 2006. (AP report.) It also issued a press release announcing the First Freedom Project-- a number of new initiatives to promote religious freedom. Attorney General Alberto J. Gonzales says the department will: (1) create a Department-wide Religious Freedom Task Force; (2) initiate a program of public education to make certain that people know their rights and that community leaders bring religious liberty concerns to the department's attention; (3) hold a series of regional training seminars for religious, civil rights and community leaders; (4) launch a new website with information on laws protecting religious freedom and how to file a complaint; and (5) distribute informational literature on how to file religious discrimination complaints.
The Attorney General also announced these initiatives in a speech before the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Full text.) In the speech he referred to the events of 9-11, saying that:"Nothing defines us more as a Nation – and differentiates us more from the extremists who are our enemies – than our respect for religious freedom." . . .
A few days ago, Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland had this op-ed, "Why I Oppose the Death Penalty," in The Washington Post. The piece seems informed by O'Malley's understanding of, and engagement with, the Church's evolving position on the issue. He writes:
In evaluating whether Maryland's criminal death penalty should be replaced with life without parole, one must be guided by the answers to two basic questions:
· Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder?
· Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to murder?
O'Malley appears to assume that the answer to the first question is, in some cases, "possibly, yes." But, he then refines the question, and asks whether, "[n]otwithstanding the executions of the rightly convicted, can the death penalty ever be justified as public policy when it inherently necessitates the occasional taking of wrongly convicted, innocent life?" And, in answering this question, O'Malley turns to the question of deterrence: "Does the use of the death penalty -- while rarely, if ever, 'just' -- save more innocent lives than it takes?" Finally, he concludes with this:
And if the death penalty as applied is inherently unjust and lacks a deterrent value, we are left to ask whether the value to society of partial retribution outweighs the cost of maintaining capital punishment. While I am mindful of and sensitive to the closure (and in some cases the comfort) that the death penalty brings to the unfathomable pain of families that have lost loved ones to violent crime, I believe that it does not.
Human dignity is the concept that leads brave individuals to sacrifice their lives for the lives of strangers. Human dignity is the universal truth that is the basis of ethics. Human dignity is the fundamental belief on which the laws of this state and this republic are founded. And absent a deterrent value, the damage done to the concept of human dignity by our conscious communal use of the death penalty is greater than the benefit of even a justly drawn retribution.
While, in the end, I share Gov. O'Malley's view on the "policy question," I'm a bit uneasy with a few of the moves in his opinion piece. Or, maybe I'm just misunderstanding. It is not entirely clear to me what "work" O'Malley's claims about deterrence, cost, and risk-of-error are doing with respect to the "is the death penalty just?" question. Now, certainly, if we are consequentialists, the question whether the death penalty's costs (money & risk of wrongful executions) outweigh its benefits (closure for victims and deterrence) is an important one. But, does O'Malley think that "the concept of human dignity" precludes capital punishment or not? If it doesn't, then would it matter if the death penalty could be administered less expensively, or if we had good data on deterrence?
This coming Friday, our own Michael Perry will be presenting (and I will be moderating) during a panel called, "What is Morality," at the Federalist Society's annual student symposium in Chicago (at Northwestern). Here is the web site and program. Typical (in my view) of Federalist Society events, the line-up of speakers and topics is rich, and far more diverse and broad than is (unfortunately) usually the case in the legal academy. If you are in or near Chicago, check it out. Of special interest, I expect, is the debate on religion in the public square between Kevin "Seamus" Hasson, the happy warrior for religious freedom and founder of the Becket Fund, and civil-religion's-bane, Michael Newdow. Hasson, by the way, has a very good book about religious freedom, which puts -- MOJ-style -- questions of moral anthropology at the heart of the matter.
Information about the Summer Catholic Social Thought Institute, to be held May 21-25 in Washington D.C., is here. The Institute is co-sponsored by the CUA Department of Sociology and the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. Speakers include Catholic law prof George Garvey, of CUA.
