Details here. Come see/hear our fellow MOJ-er Michael Moreland and super-lawyer Noel Francisco on Dec. 10.
Monday, November 16, 2015
"The Present and Future of Religious Freedom" event in Chicago
"Pursuit of Felicitas": A Defense of the Liberal State
This piece, by Andrew Latham, is well worth a read. Here's a bit:
In recent years, conservative Aristotelian-Thomists like Patrick Deneen and Alasdair MacIntyre have made the argument that a moral philosophy entailing a substantive account of human happiness or fulfillment is simply incompatible with the American liberal-democratic political order. They are convinced that America’s foundational liberal philosophical principles are in their very DNA corrosive of the traditions and institutions necessary for the realization of final ends inherent in human nature.
While there may have been a time in our history when liberalism and eudaimonism could fruitfully coexist in the United States, they argue, that time has long passed. In the current “postliberal” era, liberalism’s core commitments to “anthropological individualism” and the historicity of human “nature” have evolved to the point where they have rendered liberalism not only incompatible with eudaimonism but positively hostile to it.
While on balance I share many of these concerns, I think the liberal state deserves continued support for one simple reason: In my judgment, the full working out of the liberal principles that Deneen, MacIntyre, and I find so problematic has not yet progressed to the point where the liberal state has decisively mutated into a postliberal behemoth bent on imposing its liberal values on all its subjects. There are firewalls, institutional and philosophical, that continue to check the unfolding of this historical process, and Americans in particular continue to enjoy enormous freedom to pursue their final ends as they understand them. . . .
I am inclined to agree. But, read the whole thing . . .
Fred Zacharias Prize in Professional Responsibility
The winners have been selected for the sixth annual Fred C. Zacharias Memorial Prize for Scholarship in Professional Responsibility. The Prize will be awarded to Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, for Judging Multidistrict Litigation, 90 NYU L. Rev. 71 (2015), and Morris A. Ratner, for Class Counsel as Litigation Funders, 28 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 271 (2015).
The Prize will be awarded at the AALS Annual Meeting in New York in January.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Prayers for Paris, and for Peace
Pope Francis: Here in the Vatican we are following the terrible news from Paris. We are shocked by this new manifestation of maddening, terrorist violence and hatred which we condemn in the most radical way together with the Pope and all those who love peace. We pray for the victims and the wounded, and for all the French people. This is an attack on peace for all humanity, and it requires a decisive, supportive response on the part of all of us as we counter the spread of homicidal hatred in all of its forms.
Abortion to return to the Supreme Court
More here, at SCOTUSBlog. Justice Kennedy will do what Justice Kennedy will do. There's no need to restate here the argument that, under the Constitution correctly understood, states have the power to regulate abortion. Between this grant, and the Court's decision to hear the contraception-mandate cases, I think we can confidently expect (a) that abortion and the Supreme Court will loom large in the presidential campaign and (b) that we will have to endure inaccurate, unfair, opportunistic, and cynical ads, rhetoric, and commentary (again) about a "war on women."
Some commentators have been saying things lately along the lines of "last Term featured big wins for 'liberals'; this Term will likely be good for 'conservatives.'" Putting aside arguments we could have about the premises embedded in the use of those labels . . . I am not so confident that Justice Kennedy -- even though he was willing to rule that the insurance-coverage mandate exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause power -- will uphold the Little Sisters of the Poor's challenge to the contraception-coverage mandate nor am I confident that he will -- even though he has consistently upheld abortion regulations since the Casey decision -- allow the Texas regulations to stand. (He should, in my view; I'm just not confident that he will.)
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Roger Scruton on Catholic universities and open inquiry
An interesting quote, from this longer piece about Scruton's religion:
“Interestingly enough, in my experience, Catholic institutions are the only open-minded ones in terms of higher education. They are the only institutions that would openly offer cover and support to somebody as conservative as me, and without being dogmatic about it or agreeing with me or anything like that. Having some position in Oxford would have been impossible for me without Blackfriars.”
Correcting myths about the English Reformation
Dominic Selwood is on the case, in The Telegraph:
. . . For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church, and up and down the country Tudor people preferred plain-speaking, rational men like Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin. Henry VIII achieved what all sane English and Welsh people had long desired – an excuse to break away from an anachronistic subjugation to the ridiculous medieval strictures of the Church.
For many in England, the subject of whether or not this was true was not even up for debate. Even now, the historical English disdain for all things Catholic is often regarded as irrefutable and objective fact. Otherwise why would we have been taught it for four and a half centuries? And anyway, the English are quite clearly not an emotional race like some of our continental cousins. We like our churches bright and clean and practical and full of common sense. For this reason, we are brought up to believe that Catholicism is just fundamentally, well … un-English.
But the last 30 years have seen a revolution in Reformation research. Leading scholars have started looking behind the pronouncements of the religious revolution’s leaders – Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley – and beyond the parliamentary pronouncements and the great sermons. Instead, they have begun focusing on the records left by ordinary English people. This “bottom up” approach to history has undoubtedly been the most exciting development in historical research in the last 50 years. It has taken us away from what the rulers want us to know, and steered us closer towards what actually happened.
When this approach is applied to the Reformation, what emerges is a very different picture to the one we were taught in school. . .
As I've said often here at MOJ, it's always a good time to read Eamon Duffy.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Remember, remember . . . to read Eamon Duffy
When I was in first grade, my public school celebrated Guy Fawkes Day. It did not strike me as strange at the time, though it certainly does now. (Probably because of this guy, Henry Garnet, S.J., who was executed for not revealing the Gunpowder Plot, about which he is sometimes said to have learned in confession.) Should it? Would a public school's celebration of Guy Fawkes Day communicate to Justice O'Connor's famous "reasonable observer" that she was an outsider in the political community? Certainly, that was long the celebration's purpose. General Washington raised some eyebrows when he told his soldiers to refrain from burning the Pope in effigy as part of their celebration:
As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.
In any event, instead of burning Fawkes, or waxing rhapsodic about how liberty, individualism, and all that is good were saved when the Plot was thwarted, maybe we should read a little Eamon Duffy, and think about what England once was.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Arthur Brooks on "who?", "what?", and "why?" . . . and universities
Arthur Brooks is the President of the American Enterprise Institute and is the author of a new book called "The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America." (I've heard good things about the book, and am looking forward to listening to it.)
Recently, I listened to the podcast of "Conversations" (with Bill Kristol) which featured Brooks, and I really enjoyed it. One particular observation really jumped out at me (it's a long quote, but well worth reading) (emphasis mine):
. . . universities have a tendency to ask two wrong questions. The big – the first wrong question they tend to ask is, “What are you?” As if they impose this question on students. So students who are watching us today, particularly people who are getting ready to go to college, you’re going to get asked, “What are you?” And that is basically, “What are you? I’m a physicist, I’m an economist, I’m a business major.” And you know, that is an incredibly materialistic view of people that’s imposed from this intellectual force.
That’s hugely problematic because once you answer that question, once you define yourself in terms of that question, the world will follow with another a question, which is, “How much money?” And that’s a tyranny. That’s a manmade prison that people get in. Materialism notwithstanding, but we often hear from the conservative movement as if abundance were an end it itself, these things truly are a kind of human tyranny. They hold human welfare back. We need to rebel against it. We need to become detached from it. This is very important in every spiritual tradition but it’s just in a humanistic tradition – we all understand that to be true. So that’s the first wrong question that we tend to have.
The second is, and this is much newer and this is more troubling still. The question that students are asked is “Who are you?” And that’s what gets into the awful identify politics that dominate university campuses today. Where we go from everything to esoteric departments to identity all the way through to the climate of micro-aggression, so called micro-aggression. People who are watching us today who are at universities suffering through this weird culture. It’s because of that question, “Who are you?” You have to answer the question, “Who are you?” No you don’t! The world has a follow-up question to that too which is, “Who cares?” The world doesn’t care who you are. You shouldn’t care who you are.
KRISTOL: People in college really care who they are?
BROOKS: Because they’re being asked that. And indeed this is a period, from 18 to 22, where you’re trying to figure out your identity and when that’s dignified, when that’s put under the microscope, when you’re told that truly is an important question that can wreak your life. What are you and who are you are the wrong questions, the real question is – that we have to answer and this comes from the virtue of intellect and high education, the virtue of education per se of improving oneself of the purpose of – in my own personal view glorifying God and serving fellow man – is, “Why are you? Why are you who you are and what you are?”
The “why” question is the interrogative that’s meaningful in people’s lives. In higher ed, when you’re in this ecosystem of learning or supposed to be in an ecosystem of learning, you should be able to come to that question. Why am I on Earth? The happiest, the most fulfilled people who’ve done the most for humanity are the ones who have a very strong understanding of why they’re on the Earth. Why they’re alive. And by the way, many of them also have an understanding of why they will die. So soldiers who’ve confronted that have an understanding of what they’ve been willing to die for. Why would I die?
And, in a materialistic world we don’t have good questions for why am I alive and why should I not be alive? And those are the question that should come from an environment of learning and set us on a trajectory of learning about ourselves and learning about the world that’s neither identify politics nor materialism. The two tyrannies are what’s ruining higher ed and getting away from the fundamental question is probably the most troubling thing about universities today. . . .
Friday, October 30, 2015
"Diversity in the Christian University"
Here is a thoughtful piece, by Elizabeth Corey, on "Diversity in the Christian University." Here's a taste:
. . . Perhaps the greatest benefit of actual diversity across a university, for both faculty and students, would be the modeling of a certain kind of political relationship. If a faculty is diverse—not just demographically, but also politically and intellectually—and can nevertheless work together without characterizing opponents as enemies, then it might offer something that contemporary politics does not. This would consist in a kind of civil discourse that acknowledges profound disagreement but also seeks compromises where they may be found and respects all participants as equals.
It’s easy enough to talk about this ideal, but much harder to put into practice. It requires, at minimum, candid conversations with people you’re not inclined to agree with. . . .
. . . Moreover, within a Christian university, the legitimate goods of diversity must be balanced against a notion of unity, an idea of the particular “constitution” of a place—its heritage, its tradition, and the constituency it serves. Even while we embrace aspects of diversity, Christian schools must be bold enough to say that we prioritize a certain kind of particularity and difference from our many secular competitors. Perhaps the most effective contribution that a self-consciously Christian university can make to the sum total good of diversity is merely to be what we are. Thus, the confessional requirements of Christian schools are not a hindrance but an asset. Not everyone will feel perfectly comfortable working for, or attending, such a university, but that has traditionally been why distinct kinds of schools exist: historically black colleges, women’s and men’s colleges, large state universities, community colleges, small liberal arts colleges and many varieties of Christian institutions. . . .
Read the whole thing.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
