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.
Bryan McGraw, MoJ reader and visiting fellow at Emory's Center for the Study of Law and Religion, responds to my post of Frank Schaefer's comments on Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright:
Don’t you think Franky is being just a *wee* bit disingenuous here? First, Wright went far beyond just condemning America for its “racism and violence” and complaining that no one had used the “N-word” about Hillary. (It would have been strange if they did, and I’m sure that people have used similarly degrading language about her). He claimed (and given his theological commitments, it seems reasonable to think that these aren’t simply one-off lines) that America was fundamentally unjust, structured at its core around white domination and dedicated (through things like the creation of the AIDS virus) to the destruction of blacks. He wasn’t being prophetic, he was wandering into crank-land.
A good parallel might be a candidate who was a member of a reconstructionist church. Suppose, for example, that George W. Bush, in the course of the 2000 presidential campaign, turned out to be a member of a church built around a charismatic pastor who demonstrated a sincere and abiding commitment to the theological views of Rushdoony, North, etc. And suppose further that that Bush credited this pastor with his spiritual turn-around and had been a prominent member for a couple of decades. How do you think things would have gone for him had videos surfaced of that pastor “damning” America for its abortion politics or toleration of homosexuals? Not well, I suspect.
On a broader note, I don’t think that problem is so much that Wright thinks God might judge America for its sins, but rather that the fact that Obama seemed (until the last couple of weeks) so comfortable with, even proud of, the church and its pastor suggests that he at least thinks (or thought) Wrights views not beyond the pale and maybe even at times correct. I don’t mean to make Obama responsible for his pastor’s every utterance, but it’s implausible to think that his membership and participation in the church says nothing about who he is and what he thinks.
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."
Is it more politically acceptable for pastors to "damn" America for abortion than it is for racism? We haven't yet discussed the interesting mix of faith, race, and politics underlying the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Frank Schaefer, son of Religious Right pioneer Francis Schaefer, offers this intriguing perspective:
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
This time of year, it's important to reflect on Christ's journey by participating in the stations of the cross millenium development goals. From the department of "how has the Church survived so long without this?," the relief agency of the Episcopal Church has provided a new liturgy in which worshipers can visit stations such as "Ensure Environmental Sustainability" and "Promote Gender Equality." More commentary is here.
A few weeks ago, I posted a description of Adam Kolber's new paper, The Subjective Experience of Punishment, in which he argues that the subjective experience of punishment is a relevant factor in determining a just sentence. I asked: in terms of Catholic legal theory, should the justice of criminal punishment be viewed primarily from the defendant's perspective or from society's? Jonathan Watson has now posted a short response to Kolber's paper titled Punishment, Suffering, and Hedonic Adaptation. Building on the work of C.S. Lewis, Watson argues that Kolber's approach marginalizes the importance of both free will and retribution. It's well worth reading.
This morning I read Rick's review of Till We Have Built Jerusalem: Architecture, Urbaniam, and the Sacred, which appears in the March issue of First Things. (I look forward to reading the book). As I read, my memory brought me back to a recent trip to Pepperdine where I participated in two thought provoking conferences organized by MOJ friend, Bob Cochran. This was only my second time in Malibu. I tend to like traditional (and grand) church buildings and on my first trip to Malibu, I remember thinking that the Catholic Church, Our Lady of Malibu, was an unimpressive structure that really didn't signify the sacred. This was especially surprising given the wealth in Malibu.
Sometimes it takes a while for my eyes to adjust; I saw Our Lady of Malibu in a totally different light this time. When one is surrounded by palaces, maybe the best way to see the grandeur of God and the scandal of the Incarnation is in simplicity, after all Jesus entered the world in a stable in Betheleham. On this recent trip, I also went to the cathedral, Our Lady of the Angels, which I was prepared to dislike because of its distinctly modern features. Instead, I found the starkness of this structure, which lifted my gaze heavenward, to be be witness to LA's culture of glitz and glamour. My sense, after this recent trip, is that how we construct our sacred may very well depend upon the time, place, and circumstances.
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 theseposts and the attached comments.
