Monday, August 13, 2007
I found Rob's question about why the Catholic Legal Theory project hasn't made more space for the Bible quite interesting. In trying to answer for myself, I was struck by how my first impulse in trying to think through any sort of legal question from a CLT perspective is definitely to start with the index of some "secondary source", like the Compendium, or the Himes collection, or (now that it's out) Recovering Self-Evident Truths. I would never think of starting with the "original text," and I will often stop short of actually ever resorting to the "original text." The couple of recent articles I've written on Catholic feminism do contain a fair number of direct Bible quotes, but all were filtered through Pope John Paul II's brilliant exposition of Jesus' relationships with the women in his life, in the encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem.
I don't think it's only because I don't know what's in the Bible -- though I'd hastily concede that a cradle Catholic like me most likely has only a fraction of the familiarity with the Bible that Rob's evangelical buddies have before they leave elementary school. I think it's more because I don't have confidence that I can correctly discern all the layers of meaning that those words in the Bible contain on my own. I think it's the same impulse that would lead me, if I were trying to figure out some aspect of a Constitutional law topic, to start with some general treatise or law review article from someone whose work I respect, rather than just opening up my pocket Constitution.
Is that the Catholic in me, or the lawyer in me, or the legal scholar in me, or just some personal quirk? I don't know. But it does strike me, when I really think about it, as maybe not a good thing. At the very least, it is sort of odd. Shouldn't the legal scholar in me want to check her conclusions against the ultimate authority -- the sacred scripture? I honestly have no answer for why I find myself shying away from that impulse rather than being drawn to it.
This train of thought reminds me of a book my brother brought to my attention recently, Tod Lindberg's The Political Teachings of Jesus. Has anyone read it? You can read an excerpt on the Sermon on the Mount here. A sample: "The Beatitudes provide a dizzying commentary designed to turn upside down the political and social world of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus and of the Jewish religious elite of Judea and Jerusalem. This is the opening move of a more drastic and fundamental reassessment of political and social affairs, applying not only to its own time but to all future times, down to our day."
Here are some reviews:
“What Tod Lindberg attempts to do here is, so to speak, bring Jesus down to earth by teasing out and separating from his other worldly or religious teachings those that concern the question of how life in this world can best be lived and how society can best be organized. It is a fascinating analysis, and it sheds a bright new light on the extent to which our own form of government is rooted in the law of the Old Testament as interpreted and modified by Jesus in the New.” — Norman Podhoretz, author of The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are
“You will never read the Bible or hear a sermon the same way again after reading The Political Teachings of Jesus. Tod Lindberg outlines Jesus’s teachings for this world, not the next — for how we can and should strive for a global “community of goodwill.” It recovers the profound simplicity and power of the most fundamental Jesusian teaching: the freedom and equality of all human beings. In an age in which politics and religion are so often dangerously distorted and intertwined, this political teaching of one of our greatest religious figures could not be more timely.” — Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affaris, Princeton University; former president, American Society for International Law
We have, in the past, discussed the connection between belief in God and human rights. Today Brian Tamanaha directly challenges Michael Perry's assertion that human rights can only be grounded in religious beliefs. The entire post is worth reading -- and reflecting on -- so I won't tempt you to take the easy way out with a mere excerpt.
Rocco has the scoop . . . . From TimesOnline:
The encyclical, drafted during his recent holiday in the mountains of northern Italy, takes its cue from Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples), issued 40 years ago. In it the pontiff focused on “those peoples who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance and are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilisation”. He called on the West to promote an equitable world economic system based on social justice rather than profit.
There's a lot going on in that last sentence.
A new book by David Tubbs looks like a must-read for anyone interested in the state of the American family. Titled Freedom's Orphans: Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children, the book asks:
Has contemporary liberalism's devotion to individual liberty come at the expense of our society's obligations to children? Divorce is now easy to obtain, and access to everything from violent movies to sexually explicit material is zealously protected as freedom of speech. But what of the effects on the young, with their special needs and vulnerabilities? Freedom's Orphans seeks a way out of this predicament. Poised to ignite fierce debate within and beyond academia, it documents the increasing indifference of liberal theorists and jurists to what were long deemed core elements of children's welfare.
Evaluating large changes in liberal political theory and jurisprudence, particularly American liberalism after the Second World War, David Tubbs argues that the expansion of rights for adults has come at a high and generally unnoticed cost. In championing new "lifestyle" freedoms, liberal theorists and jurists have ignored, forgotten, or discounted the competing interests of children.
To substantiate his arguments, Tubbs reviews important currents of liberal thought, including the ideas of Isaiah Berlin, Ronald Dworkin, and Susan Moller Okin. He also analyzes three key developments in American civil liberties: the emergence of the "right to privacy" in sexual and reproductive matters; the abandonment of the traditional standard for obscenity prosecutions; and the gradual acceptance of the doctrine of "strict separation" between religion and public life.
While Rick was observing the occasion of our 5,000th post, I was on my annual pilgrimage to an evangelical Bible conference in northwest Iowa. Devoting a week of vacation to learning more about the Bible with 1,000 other people might be a distinctly evangelical phenomenon, but it gives me a different frame of reference for reflecting on the MoJ experience thus far. I am struck by the infrequency with which we discuss scripture in formulating Catholic legal theory -- indeed, I would venture to say that we could count on one hand the number of MoJ posts that have delved into the substance of particular Bible passages. I have recently read Regent law prof (and MoJ-friend) Michael Schutt's wonderful new book Redeeming Law: Christian Calling and the Legal Profession, which is full of Bible references. So why hasn't the Catholic legal theory project made more space for the Bible? Is it because the Church's social teaching has already incorporated the biblical narrative, making our explicit appeal to scripture superfluous? Is it because we don't know the Bible well enough to bring it to bear on our legal analysis? Or is it something else?
A number of law-bloggers have put up helpful posts, advising prospective law-teachers about the hiring conference, etc. On a related note, I'd like to hear from folks who either have recently gone through the conference, or who are planning on participating in this year's, what questions they would like to hear, or would have liked to hear, from interviewers. What are some questions that, in your mind, give candidates the chance to put their best foot forward, in terms of the things that communities of legal scholars should care about? What are questions that, you think, suggest a faculty community of which you might like to be a part?
Sunday, August 12, 2007
An attorney in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida has filed a motion for recusal of U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch from an employment case for bias, based on his "deep religious beliefs." Law.com reports that:
In a 110-page motion for recusal filed last month, Spolter cited Zloch's hiring of several law clerks from Ave Maria Law School, a donation to the Roman Catholic school and his attendance at several junkets for judges sponsored by conservative organizations.
The motion itself is offensive on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin, but most salient perhaps is the fact that supportive statements from lawyers who have appeared before him representing clients like abortion clinics and strippers all claim that he is scrupulously fair. As "evidence" of bias, the attorney charges that:
Zloch has employed more law clerks from Ave Maria -- three in all -- than any other judge in the nation. Currently, two of his three clerks are Ave Maria graduates.
The school lists Zloch as one of its advocates, featuring him among its "honor roll of donors" for contributing $100 to $500 in 2004.
"Having faculty with strong beliefs favoring one end of the political spectrum would not be troublesome in and of itself," according to Spolter's motion. "It does, however, become problematic when a judge rewards and endorses a law school -- through monetary contributions and by aggressively hiring its graduates as law clerks -- when the faculty is comprised solely of those advocating a certain limited range of political and religious beliefs."
Does anyone else find this sort of scary?
Saturday, August 11, 2007
John Freund, C.M., recently rewatched Pay it Forward, the 2000 film about a seventh grade extra credit homework assignment that changed the world. It intrigued him enough to cause him to gather some materials on the "pay it forward" idea and the movement spawned by the movie, exemplifying a simple yet profound idea "that involve[s] people in solutions that are practical and replicable." The materials he has linked to can be accessed via his famvin website, here. As I was reading some of the material, I was particularly taken by Ben Franklin's use of the concept, illustrated in this letter.
It is not Catholic Legal Theory, but it does demonstrate the powerful potential ripple effect of small individual actions. "Pay it Forward" projects in schools and towns have yielded tremendous results.
