Message to (my pal) Michael Perry: Obama: no. Edwards: no. Clinton: no. etc. etc. Oh, and re-read this.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Message to Michael Perry . . .
Saturday, April 14, 2007
News "from Abroad"
This, from MOJ-friend (and Trinity College Dublin law prof) Gerry Whyte:
"During the week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a woman could not insist on the implantation of in vitro embryos where her former partner objected. The Court's press statement on this case may be read here and the full judgment here.
In essence, the Court held, inter alia, that, in the absence of a consensus among European states about the status of the embryo, each country has a margin of appreciation within which to address this issue and that UK legislation on the point was not contrary to the Convention on Human Rights.
A case on identical facts is currently on appeal to the Irish Supreme Court, the High Court having held that the guarantee of the right to life in Article 40.3.3 of our Constitution applies only in the context of pregnancy and so not to in vitro embryos."
Friday, April 13, 2007
"Evangelical atheism"
Here's a long, and sobering, post by Rod Dreher, on the recent WSJ op-ed on the "evangelical atheism" trend, and what it suggests about, well, lots of things. A taste of the op-ed:
Mr. Onfray argues that atheism faces a "final battle" against "theological hocus-pocus" and must rally its troops. "We can no longer tolerate neutrality and benevolence," he writes in "Traité d'athéologie," or Atheist Manifesto, a best seller in France, Italy and Spain. "The turbulent time we live in suggests that change is at hand and the time has come for a new order."
As with many fights involving faith, Europe's struggle between belief and nonbelief is also a proxy for other, concrete issues that go far beyond the supernatural. In this case, they involve a battle to define the identity of a continent.
I might pick a different word than "evangelical" to describe Mr. Onfray. Moving on, though, here's Dreher:
Canary in the coal mine time for the faithful in Europe: This best-selling author preaches that the time for tolerating religious believers in Europe is past, and it's time for a "final battle." What's this you atheists who comment here like to say about the hostility and intolerance of Christians? Dream on, dears.
Teleology and Goodness
Ryan Anderson sends along this conference announcement:
Teleology and Goodness: Metaphysics, Mind and Action Princeton University of Trier University of Reading Fordham University
A summer graduate philosophy seminar sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute from August 5--10, 2007 on the campus of
http://www.winst.org/thomisticseminar/index.html
Faculty
Anselm Muller,
David Oderberg,
Gyula Klima,
Robert Koons, University of Texas-Austin
David Gallagher
Description
"The good" – that which is desirable or to be done – and "teleology" – action for the sake of an end – are interrelated notions which have been perennial subjects of philosophical enquiry. They are implicated in questions about causation, natural kinds, cognition, intentional action, as well as a host of other key philosophical issues. Although a strong theme in modern philosophy has been the deflation of their status as genuine aspects of nature, recent philosophical work in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and action theory has flouted this trend by offering robust accounts of teleological realism and natural goodness. Such accounts characteristically find inspiration in the philosophical tradition founded by Aristotle and developed by his successors, among whom Thomas Aquinas is preeminent.
It is against this background that the 2007 Thomistic Seminar will be devoted to exploring the nature of and relationship between teleology and goodness as they figure in metaphysics, mind, and action according to Aquinas. The Seminar will focus on an accurate explication and assessment of Aquinas' views, with a special interest in how they might engage with contemporary positions on these issues within the tradition of analytic philosophy. Specific issues will include:
efficient, material, formal, final causation
form and matter
substance and accident
actuality and potentiality
being and goodness
substantial identity
the relationship between description, modality, and normativity
rationality, normativity, and self-consciousness
practical knowledge
practical and theoretical irrationality
constitutive aim theories of action
the relationship between theoretical and practical reason
actus humanus and actus hominis
The Seminar's discussion will anticipate the (tentative) 2008 theme, which will be devoted to teleology and goodness as they arise in ethics, politics, and legal theory.
More Information
Applications must be submitted by May 1, 2007. Please visit http://www.winst.org/thomisticseminar/index.html
or contact [email protected] for more details.
"Personal law," federalism, and religious pluralism
This looks very interesting:
Jeff Redding (Yale Law School) has posted Slicing the American Pie: Federalism and Personal Law on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In this piece, I draw upon Indian and other comparative legal experience to argue that the present U.S. system of territorial federalism resonates deeply with those systems of "personal law" that are commonly found around the world. Under a personal law system, a state enforces different laws for each of the state's different religious or ethnic communities - which is one reason such systems have been so heavily interrogated by U.N. and other international organisations for their human rights implications. Similarly, as well, U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence has frowned upon the carving out of religious-group exceptions to generally-applicable law. That being said, the U.S. Supreme Court has also recently given renewed emphasis to state sovereignty and other federal values. As this piece argues, what results from this worship of federalism is a truly American-style personal law system, where territorial communities have taken the place of other personal law systems' religious and ethnic communal constituencies. This being the case, I conclude by questioning recent innovations in American constitutional jurisprudence which devalue religious pluralism, while simultaneously elevating territorial communalism.
Thanks for Larry Solum for the link.
"Contracting with Intimates"
In the Catholic Social Tradition, "family" matters. Not merely as a code or short-hand for a certain set of policies, but as a pre-political (and political) institution, a structural safeguard of freedom and promoter of human flourishing. So, those who read this blog might be interested in Prof. Robert Ellickson's new paper, "Unpacking the Hearth," which -- I'm quoting Ethan Lieb -- argues that "it is good to keep the law out of the hearth because people in liberal societies are pretty good at self-organization and find optimal living situations in households without too much recourse to legal institutions. We consort with intimates -- and it is bad to contract with our intimates because it is not efficient and it debases those relationships."
Here's Prof. Ellickson's abstract:
As Aristotle recognized in The Politics, the household is an indispensable building block of social, economic, and political life. A liberal society grants its citizens far wider berth to arrange their households than to choose their familial and marital relationships. Legal commentators, however, have devoted far more attention to the family and to marriage than to the household as such. To unpack the household, this Article applies transaction cost economics and sociological theory to interactions among household participants. It explores questions such as the structure of ownership of dwelling units, the scope of household production, and the governance of activities around the hearth. Drawing on a wide variety of historical and statistical sources, the Article contrasts conventional family-based households with arrangements in, among others, medieval English castles, Benedictine monasteries, and Israeli kibbutzim.
A household is likely to involve several participants and as many as three distinct relationships--that among occupants, that among owners, and that between these two groups (the landlord-tenant relationship). Individuals, when structuring these home relationships, typically pursue a strategy of consorting with intimates. This facilitates informal coordination and greatly reduces the transaction costs of domestic interactions. Utopian critics, however, have sought to enlarge the scale of households, and some legal advocates have urged household members to write formal contracts and take disputes into court. These commentators fail to appreciate the great advantages, in the home setting, of informally associating with a few trustworthy intimates.
Prof. Ellickson was one of the best teachers I've ever had. I cannot wait to read this paper.
Maggie Gallagher on Rudy Giuliani
Rudy to pro-lifer: drop dead
By Maggie Gallagher
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Thirty-eight percent for Rudy; 16 percent for McCain. On the surface, the latest Gallup Poll of GOP voters is great news for the Giuliani campaign. Mitt Romney scored just 6 percent, less than Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (10 percent each) -- two guys who aren't even officially in the race.
But the apparent collapse of the McCain candidacy (it's early yet) may end up being a problem for Rudy. Deep distrust of McCain as the designated GOP front-runner has to some extent shielded Rudy Giuliani from the focused opposition of social conservatives.
Personally, I know I tried really hard to find a way to make the match work. But it takes two to tango, and Rudy's clearly not interested in meeting anyone -- not me, not most of his spouses, not his son -- halfway. Or a quarter of the way. In fact, being Rudy, he's not budging a step. All the deep-seated longing for rapprochement clearly runs in only one direction.
I'm not sure Rudy gets it: Big and strong is good, but only if it's used on our behalf and not against us. A big strong guy who just doesn't care what you think is scary, not reassuring. The same Rudy who cleaned up the mean streets of New York is the same Rudy who used his leadership abilities to dump his wife via a press conference and then tried to make the rest of us feel ashamed for caring about how he treats his family. It's the same Rudy who came out swinging to defend his new wife (whom he clearly loves) and left his son slowly twisting in the wind with dying hopes of some attention from his dad. That's the same Rudy who last week endorsed public funding of abortions as a constitutional right, thus killing two birds of hope with one stone.
In 1989, Rudy stated "there must be public funding of abortions" and criticized President George H.W. Bush for vetoing federal funding for abortions. Asked by CNN if this remains his position, he said: "Probably ... Generally, that's my view." When asked, "Would you support public funding for abortion?" Rudy answered, "If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes." Ultimately, he said that if it's a constitutional right, you have to provide public funding to make sure poor women can do it.
As the editors of National Review recently pointed out, this "makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense." No statements issued afterward by campaign spokespeople can undo the revelations of the way this candidate actually thinks and how he will govern.
Put the abortion issue aside for a moment, and think about what Giuliani has just revealed about how he thinks of the Constitution: If you believe in the First Amendment, does the government have to buy poor people printing presses? If you believe in the Second Amendment, must the taxpayers buy guns for poor folks? What kind of "strict constructionist" would say the government must pay for something if it is a constitutional right? For that matter, what kind of fiscal conservative would ever make such a claim?
Rudy Giuliani has now made it perfectly clear: Electing him for president (given a Democratic Congress) will likely mean taxpayer-funded abortions and Supreme Court justices with some truly odd and unreliable views of our Constitution. No pro-lifer in good conscience can vote for Rudy.
So what are people like me supposed to do? "I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me," Rudy said in South Carolina last week.
OK, Rudy, you got yourself a deal.
Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.
Message to Rick Garnett: Casey, Yes; Giuliani, No
April 10, 2007
GIULIANI AND CASEY:
MAKING LIFE DECISIONS
Catholic League president Bill
Donohue commented today on presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani’s recent
statement on abortion, and Senator Bob Casey’s position on embryonic stem cell
research:
“Catholics who accept the
teachings of the Catholic Church on the life issues have every reason to be
angry with Rudy Giuliani’s pledge to maintain taxpayer-funded abortions if
elected president. His overall position on abortion is incoherent. He says he
is now opposed to partial-birth abortion except to save the life of the mother,
would appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges and says he personally ‘hates’
abortion.
“Giuliani has no need to qualify
his opposition to partial-birth abortion: the American Medical Association has
determined that there is never a medical need for this type of abortion.
Moreover, if he appoints the kinds of judges he says he will appoint, it is not
likely they will uphold the wholly contrived right to abortion-on-demand. So
why not simply say that Roe v. Wade invented a right that nowhere
appears in the Constitution? And if he ‘hates’ abortion, what exactly is it
that he hates about it? And why does he want to impose on the public the burden
of paying for something that is constitutionally suspect and morally repugnant?
“When running for the senate seat
in Pennsylvania, Casey would not
commit on how he would vote on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
Now he says he’s against it. This is good news. It makes it all the more
difficult for him to later renege on his pro-life position on abortion, and
thus should be welcomed by practicing Catholics in both parties.
“Catholics look to people like Giuliani and Casey to promote a culture of life. Giuliani’s mixed signals are in need of repair. Casey is off to a good start.”
Christian Scholars Forum In Austin
If you find yourself in the Austin, Texas tomorrow, Saturday, April 14, check out the Christian Scholars Forum, which will be held from 11am-5pm in the Quadrangle Room of the Texas Union at the University of Texas. MOJ friend and Baylor professor, Francis Beckwith will give the keynote. His lecture is entitled "Courting Prejudice: How Judges Unjustly Burden Believers' Civic Participation By the `Religious Motive' Test." A group of UT law students have formed a panel to discuss "Christianity and Contemporary Legal Issues" at this one day conference. For more information: click here.
HT: Chris Scaperlanda
Easter Season Reflection
Yesterday's "Mediation of the Day" from Magnificat was a great reflection for this Easter season. It's from Giuseppe Ricciotti, identified as "a highly respected Italian Scripture scholar" who died in 1964.
Certain it is that Jesus is today more alive than ever among us. All have need of him, either to love him or to curse him, but they cannot do without him. Many people in the past have been loved with extreme intensity -- Socrates by his disciples, Julius Caesar by his legionaries, Napoleon by his soldiers. But today they belong irrevocably to the past; not a heart beats at their memory. There is no one who would give his life or even his possessions for them even though their ideals are still being advocated. And when their ideals are opposed, no one ever thinks of cursing Socrates or Julius Caesar or Napoleon, because their personalities no longer have any influence; they are bygones. But not Jesus; Jesus is still loved, and he is still cursed; people still renounce their possessions and even their lives both for love of him and out of hatred for him.
No living being is as alive as Jesus.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
