In answer to Michael's question, and -- I suspect -- agreeing with him, it does not seem possible to me to deny that treatment of the kind alleged by Padilla's lawyers is immoral -- horrifyingly so, in fact.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Torturing Padilla
Was Our Government's Treatment of Jose Padilla Immoral?
[From Leiter Reports. Follow the link below. Follow this link too. If the allegations are true, then on what ground, if any, can we decline to conclude that what our government did to Jose Padilla was immoral?]
Objective: incapacitation (Wilson)
It appears that the U.S. government has successfully driven Jose Padilla insane.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM FOR MILITARY ETHICS
MOJ-friend Chris Eberle (Philosophy, Naval Academy) supplies this information about what promises to be a very interesting symposium. Take a look, here.
A "Shameful Reversal of Rights"?
Today's Boston Globe carries as its lead editorial a commentary on the Massachusett's legislature's permitting the continuation of the legal process to define constitutionally marriage as the union of one man and one woman. HERE The title of this editorial is: "A Shameful Reversal of Rights." But, is the action a true reversal of any "right"; moreover, is the action of the legislature "shameful"? The answer to each of these questions is no.
The reason why the answer is no relies on a proper understanding of the meaning of equality. While MOJ is not the appropriate forum to develop an in-depth investigation of the concept of equality, which is at the heart of the marriage debate, I hope to develop this inquiry over the coming months. But in the meantime, an initial response to the Globe editorial is in order because of the influence that publication has on the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and elsewhere.
The proposed amendment to the state Constitution that is at the nucleus of this controversy defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a definition that long existed but was altered by the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in the Goodrich case handed down a few years ago. If the proposed Constitutional amendment is a ban on gay "marriage" as the Globe asserts, it is also a ban on polygamous "marriage" and any other relationship or association that someone erroneously believes to be a "marriage."
The Globe editorial is also highly critical of the use of the procedural mechanism being used to present the amendment and indicates that one of the "key" arguments (namely, a large number of certified signatures on a citizens' petition) is "spurious." I often wonder what the Globe's characterization of this mechanism would be if it were used by advocates for same-sex "marriage" had the Goodrich case been decided differently. In the context of the current use of the legal mechanism to define marriage, the Globe further asserts that "There is no such right" in the Constitution; however, the recent criticism levied by the Supreme Judicial Court against legislative efforts to thwart the process to amend the Constitution would indicate that the Globe's assertion is unfounded.
In presenting the rationale to support this editorial, the Globe appears to rely, in part, on a recent statement by Governor-elect Deval Patrick that yesterday's vote by the state legislature enabling the amendment to proceed is "irresponsible and wrong." Once again, the Supreme Judicial Court has suggested otherwise. However, this does not eliminate the possibility that someone else-- perhaps the Globe or the Governor-elect-- is wrong.
I would like to end this posting with a recollection from my experience as an elementary school student who attended a public school in Massachusetts during the 1950s. Several times during the course of the academic year at either school assemblies or during the broadcasted morning annoucements, Governors' proclamations-- often dealing with some civic-minded subject-- were read to the students. The public readings of these proclamations always ended with the supplication: "God Save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!" In light of the fact that MOJ is a web log dedicated to Catholic legal theory, I shall conclude this post by saying that I shall continue to pray to the Almighty that He may indeed save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that I plan to begin my investigation of equality soon. A blessed New Year to members and readers of MOJ. RJA sj
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Signs of Life at Vogue Magazine?
Maybe it's just New Year's optimism, but I am sometimes tempted to wonder whether we're reaching some sort of turning point in the battle to establish a culture of life in the United States. While getting a haircut just before Christmas, I indulged myself by reading the latest issue of Vogue magazine. There -- amidst advertisements for $3,690 (!) Gucchi purses, maps of the great fashion houses of Paris, and an article on Christmas gift-giving that pondered, "But how can I spend less than $100 and not feel chintzy, you wonder? In point of fact, this is almost surpassingly easy." -- I was surprised by two powerful pro-life articles.
One was a tribute to Oriana Fallaci by a journalist named Janine di Giovanni. Giovanni described how Fallaci had been her model for much of her journalistic life -- and her private life. Upon reading Fallaci's Letter to a Child Never Born, in which Fallaci explores her tortured feelings about the fact that she never had children, Giovanni wrote: "I decided I had enough. . . I flew . . . to meet up with the love of my life, a French reporter I had met in Sarajevo. For many years, we'd had a tempestuous Fallaci-style relationship -- passionate about our work, but also about each other. We married a few weeks after I left Baghdad, and barely nine months later, our son, Luca was born. Seeing how Fallaci had lived -- burning with conviction but with no tranquil private life -- inspired me to change my destiny."
The second article was a haunting story by John Burnham Schwartz about the heartbreak he and his wife experienced during their multi-year quest to have a child. The article was extraordinary in its focus on the suffering caused by the failure of multiple pregnancies and the imagery he used to describe this suffering. He begins with this story:
I have a good friend, a lovely and unfailingly optimistic woman some 30 years older than I am, who over lunch a couple of years ago quietly announced that she'd had seven pregnancies and two beautiful children. Her faint smile let me know that she wasn't complaining about her history -- on the contrary, she considered herself blessed -- while the flicker of sorrow in her eyes attested to the fact that she would never foget the pain. I have no memory of my inadequate response, though I remember being shocked. The numbers seven and two seemed to speak for themselves, the stark difference between them -- that unspoken five -- like a ledger of ghosts suddenly written on our lunch table. I'd had no idea that beyond her children, both grown into wonderful adults, there had been, long before our friendship, a series of tragically unoccupied places in her family.
And, towards the end of the article, he writes:
Every morning on my way to my third-floor office I stop in for a visit with my son, Garrick, who is eight months old. I do this just to remind myself; to pray at the altar; to take a whiff of his life. I think to myself: If any of the others had worked, we wouldn't have him. And I can imagine no one but him. I don't know God very well, but it's my belief that God can imagine no one but him.
In Vogue magazine? Not one, but two, married couples wanting children? The suggestion that we are all created in the image and likeness of God? Take a look for yourself, if you can find a copy of the the December 2006 Vogue at your doctor or hairdresser or barber. It's the one with the picture of Nicole Kidman on the cover, dressed in what looks like a gold-plated bustier.
Lisa
Religious Freedom & Native Americans: Which Circuit Got It Right--the 9th or the 10th?
Sightings 1/1/07
Even Where Eagles Fly
-- Martin E. Marty
Weary as we have a right to be after the wearying December Wars that pit one kind of Christian versus all kinds of everyone else, or after ringing the latest changes on Muslim-Christian and everyone-else issues, let's turn away and lift our eyes, which means to do our "sighting" high above such conflicts and issues. We can take a day, or a week, off and train our eyes on soaring eagles, thus escaping such mundane things as church-state rulings and contentions.
Fat chance. We can't evade such issues merely by scanning the horizons and clouds and cliffs where eagles fly and land. "Church and state" battles are not to be evaded or avoided. Here's an illustration, described by Wyoming author Brodie Farquhar in one of my favorites, High Country News. We are told of a Northern Arapaho named Winslow W. Friday, who violated the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act by shooting a bald eagle on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Don't think that aeries are far from the world of dockets and the long reach of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, followed by conflicting 9th and 10th Circuit Court rulings.
Stick to your subject, Sightings, the subject being religion. Well, we are sticking to it, the eagles being sacred and their feathers necessary for religious rituals of the Northern Arapaho, and protecting them being sacred to the Wildlife Protection people. A Hopi, Berra Neil Tawahongva, spiritual kin to Winslow Friday, last August killed a golden eagle but did not convince the 9th Circuit Court that needing to get a permit to kill the bird violated the "free exercise of religion" clause in his case. The judge: "It is clear to this Court that the Government has no intention of accommodating the religious beliefs of Native Americans except on the law's own terms and in its own good time."
Over against it, a 10th Circuit Court ruling wants to add emphasis to "the sanctity of the Sun Dance and the obligation of the Arapaho people to nurture our sacred ceremonies for generations." The Arapaho say they will not endanger the survival of the eagles, which "the Creator gave ... to the Arapaho. We want more eagles. We want them to flourish." Some picture that the conflict of court rulings will destine this to a Supreme Court future, while others think not. Some dream of compromise of the sort worked out by some tribes who are given some wounded eagles, and then breed them for feathers. The Arapaho say that feathers alone won't do; for some religious rites they need the whole bird.
We bring this up here not to side with the 9th versus the 10th Circuit Courts, or the "whole bird" versus the "single feather" tribes, or the hunters versus the breeders, the "don't cares" versus the "cares," the American Indians versus the others, or any other versuses. Instead, this instance shows once again that to be born into the realm of civil law, which is everywhere, is to be planted, individually or in a tribe, in a place that can create issues when realizing that one is also born into a realm where the transcendent is honored.
This is a way of saying that we will not reach a moment in a free society wherein church-state or religion-and-regime issues will be resolved. It is also a way of saying that changes of scenery and venues for conflict can be both refreshing and plaguing.
References:
Even Where Eagles Fly
-- Martin E. Marty
Weary as we have a right to be after the wearying December Wars that pit one kind of Christian versus all kinds of everyone else, or after ringing the latest changes on Muslim-Christian and everyone-else issues, let's turn away and lift our eyes, which means to do our "sighting" high above such conflicts and issues. We can take a day, or a week, off and train our eyes on soaring eagles, thus escaping such mundane things as church-state rulings and contentions.
Fat chance. We can't evade such issues merely by scanning the horizons and clouds and cliffs where eagles fly and land. "Church and state" battles are not to be evaded or avoided. Here's an illustration, described by Wyoming author Brodie Farquhar in one of my favorites, High Country News. We are told of a Northern Arapaho named Winslow W. Friday, who violated the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act by shooting a bald eagle on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Don't think that aeries are far from the world of dockets and the long reach of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, followed by conflicting 9th and 10th Circuit Court rulings.
Stick to your subject, Sightings, the subject being religion. Well, we are sticking to it, the eagles being sacred and their feathers necessary for religious rituals of the Northern Arapaho, and protecting them being sacred to the Wildlife Protection people. A Hopi, Berra Neil Tawahongva, spiritual kin to Winslow Friday, last August killed a golden eagle but did not convince the 9th Circuit Court that needing to get a permit to kill the bird violated the "free exercise of religion" clause in his case. The judge: "It is clear to this Court that the Government has no intention of accommodating the religious beliefs of Native Americans except on the law's own terms and in its own good time."
Over against it, a 10th Circuit Court ruling wants to add emphasis to "the sanctity of the Sun Dance and the obligation of the Arapaho people to nurture our sacred ceremonies for generations." The Arapaho say they will not endanger the survival of the eagles, which "the Creator gave ... to the Arapaho. We want more eagles. We want them to flourish." Some picture that the conflict of court rulings will destine this to a Supreme Court future, while others think not. Some dream of compromise of the sort worked out by some tribes who are given some wounded eagles, and then breed them for feathers. The Arapaho say that feathers alone won't do; for some religious rites they need the whole bird.
We bring this up here not to side with the 9th versus the 10th Circuit Courts, or the "whole bird" versus the "single feather" tribes, or the hunters versus the breeders, the "don't cares" versus the "cares," the American Indians versus the others, or any other versuses. Instead, this instance shows once again that to be born into the realm of civil law, which is everywhere, is to be planted, individually or in a tribe, in a place that can create issues when realizing that one is also born into a realm where the transcendent is honored.
This is a way of saying that we will not reach a moment in a free society wherein church-state or religion-and-regime issues will be resolved. It is also a way of saying that changes of scenery and venues for conflict can be both refreshing and plaguing.
References:
"Tribal religion trumps eagle protection" (High
Country News, November 13, 2006) by Brodie Farquhar
([email protected]) can be read at:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=16679.
----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Executing Saddam: An Update
Michael Perry asks our readers to compare and cntrast my take on executing Saddam with that of Michael Joseph. Joseph makes a powerful case against the licitness of Saddam's execution, but I remain unpersuaded. I updated my original post to reply to Joseph here (scroll down).
Rosen on Fried on Liberty
What is "freedom"? What does it mean for freedom to be "authentic"? What is the relationship between "freedom" and "liberty"? And so on. All questions of interest to those working to understand and expound "Catholic legal theory." So, check out this review, by Gary Rosen, of Charles Fried's new book, "Modern Liberty and the Limits of Government". Here's a bit:
As Fried sees it, the free development of individuals, choosing and judging by their own lights, must “come first” as a social and political priority. Much as we might talk about other public goals — virtue, equality, national glory — they all amount in the end to mere metaphors, especially as compared with the “rock-bottom, indigestible fact” of our “lonely individuality.” To capture this idea of personal liberty, and to give it some normative force, Fried asks us to imagine ourselves surrounded by a protective “bubble” of rights, carefully negotiating the terms of every relationship and attachment. This, he writes, is the “moral space” we inhabit, and no one may “trespass upon it” without wronging us. . . .
. . . Fried tends to press his philosophical claims too far, especially in asserting the autonomy and self-sufficiency of the sovereign individual. His hyperrational Mr. Bubble is a theorist’s fiction. No one’s life really takes shape so antiseptically, without unchosen attachments and the habits of mind imprinted by family, friends and nation.
An Irish Comment on a Salvadoran Sentence
[MOJ-friend--and Trinity College Dublin law prof--Gerry Whyte responds to these posts: here and here:]
Reading today’s MOJ, I came across the item about El Salvador and the questionable reporting of a case by the New York Times magazine. While I understand that the thrust of the item is about the obligation on reporters to check facts, what struck me about the case was the fact that a woman guilty of what we would call infanticide was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. From time to time, new born infants are found dead in this country but the authorities always proceed with great sensitivity towards the mother and prosecutions are rarely taken. (Back in the 1980s, there was a controversial case in Co. Kerry that achieved notoriety and resulted in a public inquiry but that was controversial because of the manner in which the police investigated the case, not because of the fact that a newborn infant was found dead.) Now it may be that the Irish cases are entirely cases of abandonment and not deliberate killing, so that the Irish response might not be directly comparable to that of the authorities in El Salvador. Nonetheless, isn’t thirty years for infanticide somewhat harsh, given that in the immediate aftermath of childbirth, the mother might not be fully responsible for her actions?
More Catholic views on Saddam's execution
NRO has gathered some short posts -- including one by me -- by Catholics in response to the characterization, by a spokesman for the Holy See, of Saddam's execution as "tragic." Those of Fr. Williams and Prof. Brugger strike me as particularly worth reading.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
