Thursday, November 4, 2004
Our colleague Steve Bainbridge has a column up at Tech Central Station, called "Law and Moral Values," in which he engages those Libertarians (and libertarians) who "refuse to accept the proposition that law can and should be based on moral principles derived from natural law."
Rick
Over the past few months, we have had on Mirror of Justice a conversation about the implications of our shared Catholic faith for political action -- in particular, for voting. We've disagreed but -- with, perhaps, a few exceptions -- have kept things fairly measured. In this respect, the MOJ bloggers come off much, much better than the columnists in today's New York Times. On MOJ, my colleagues who supported Senator Kerry, or opposed President Bush, did so because of concerns about the compatibility of Bush's policies with Catholic Social Teaching. Today's NYT columnists, though, treat us to a frenzy of anti-religious vitriol and snobbery. Garry Wills bemoans "the day the enlightenment went out," asking whether "a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?" and comparing America's "fundamentalist zeal, . . . rage at secularity, religious intolerance, and fear of and hatred for modernity" to the values that are dominant in "the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda." The ever-snarky Maureen Dowd charges:
W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Even Tom Friedman, usually a measured and balanced observer, complains that "this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is." He adds, "[m]y problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad."
It strikes me that the content and tone of these and other comments about the recent election reveal that, for many of President Bush's opponents, the motivating concern is not -- as it was for my MOJ colleagues, whose opposition I respect -- a sense of solidarity with the poor, or a desire for the "tranquility of order" that comes with a just peace, or a hope that we can move beyond the death penalty. It is, instead, a knee-jerk cultural prejudice, and a fear that "the Christians are coming!"
Rick
UPDATE: For another screed, check out Eric Alterman's latest, "Welcome to My Nightmare." To be clear: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being extremely disappointed that one's favored candidate lost, or with being concerned that the country appears to be on the wrong track.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Last weekend at the Christian Legal Society's annual meeting, I presented a paper entitled Sex, Marriage, and Procreation, which is now linked on the right hand side of this blog. My thesis is that a direct link exists between our culture's general acceptance of contraception and the case now being made for gay marriage. Here is my logic: Sex is divorced from its procreative potential (revolutionary technology: the pill; judicial imprimatur: Griswold); sex is divorced from its marital norm (technology: again, birth control; judicial imprimatur: Eisenstadt); sex is divorced from its heterosexual forms and norms (reproductive technology: n/a; judicial imprimatur: Lawrence); and now procreative possibilities are now divorced from heterosexual sex (new reproductive technologies; judicial imprimatur: --US Supreme Court???, Goodridge (Mass)).
The Goodridge court in Mass. appears to make the same point. That court made the connection between Griswold and gay marriage: “It is hardly surprising that civil marriage developed historically as a means to regulate heterosexual conduct and to promote child rearing, because until very recently unassisted heterosexual relations were the only means short of adoption by which children could come into the world, and the absence of widely available and effective contraceptives made the link between heterosexual sex and procreation strong indeed. … But it is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it historically has been. As one dissent acknowledges, in ‘the modern age,’ ‘heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined.’” Id. at 961-962 n. 23 (citation omitted).
I would appreciate comments from my fellow blogistas as well as any readers.
Our friend Patrick Brennan (the new Scarpa Chair at Villanova's law school) has organized an upcoming conference at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C.: "Authority After Authoritarianism: Christian Contributions to Jurisprudence." Here is a link to the program. The conference will be held on November 19 and 20, and it looks to be an excellent event.
Rick
After a season of passionate disagreement over the election, I think it's important to begin this new chapter on Mirror of Justice by recognizing certain basic truths we all can agree on, including this cautionary example of an inherently self-defeating method of engaging the culture with the Gospel.
Rob
Tuesday, November 2, 2004
My wife, Maria Ruiz Scaperlanda, passed this on from a Carmelite listserv. The subject heading on the post was "election day strength":
My soul, give praise to the Lord;
I will praise the Lord all my days,
make music to the Lord while I live.
Put no trust in princes,
in mortal men in whom there is no help,
take their breath, they return to clay
and their plans that day come to nothing.
He is happy who is helped by Jacob's God,
whose help is in the Lord his God,
who alone made heaven and earth,
the seas and all they contain.
It is he who keeps faith forever,
who is just to those who are oppressed,
It is he who gives bread to the hungry,
the Lord, who sets prisoners free.
the Lord who gives sight to the blind,
who raises up those who are bowed down,
the Lord who protects the stranger and
upholds the widow and orphan.
It is the Lord who loves the just
but thwarts the path of the wicked.
The Lord will reign for ever,
Zion's God from age to age.
Psalm 146
Washington & Lee politics prof Lucas Morel has contributed an election day reflection for Christianity Today. Here's an excerpt:
"One Nation Under God" is an abiding theme in American politics. It reminds us that our politics are just as much a part of our spiritual life as any other activity or institution ordained by God (Rom. 13:1). It speaks of God's providence over our nation, which creates a responsibility in us to act as a people under God's judgment as well as his blessing. In short, we must govern ourselves according to principles of justice and right, and not merely majority rule or numerical might.A verse related to this theme is found in Psalm 33:12: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Some might misinterpret this as a boast: "Look at us; God is on our side." But reading the rest of the psalm, we find that it declares the simple but all-important truth that those who worship the one true God will discover a God who seeks out all human beings, to bless them richly with his presence and supply. Historically, the people of Israel were chosen by God to be a blessing unto the nations. With the coming of Christ, and his rule over the church, the nations witnessed a new and growing people of God, drawn from all tongues and tribes, and called to be a blessing to all nations by teaching them about the present and future rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As we come at last to the decisive election day—and as we anticipate the bitter wrangling that may well follow—we do well to read and reflect upon the remaining verses of Psalm 33 for the revelation they bring about the one true God who rules the heavens and the earth, and what he intends for those who put their trust in him:
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
13 From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind;
14 from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth—
15 he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do.
16 No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength.
17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.
18 But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him, on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,
19 to deliver them from death and keep them alive in famine.
20 We wait in hope for the LORD; he is our help and our shield.
21 In him our hearts rejoice, for we trust in his holy name.
22 May your unfailing love rest upon us, O LORD, even as we put our hope in you.
Rob
[Thought this would be of interest. mp]
The New York Review of Books
November 18, 2004
What Is a Just War?
By Garry Wills
Click here for full article. Abstract follows:
The traditional theory of the just war covers three main topics--the
cause of war, the conduct of war, and the consequences of war. Or, in
the Scholastic tags: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum.
But most attention is given now to the middle term, the conduct of
war. That is where clear offenses are most easily identified, though
only occasionally reported and even more rarely punished. The two main
rules of jus in bello have to do with discrimination between
combatants and noncombatants, the latter to be spared as far as
possible, and proportionality, so that violence is calibrated to its
need for attaining the war's end. The claims of morality here are
recognized with difficulty in actual combat, and disputed when
recognized. Why should that be?
Monday, November 1, 2004
Earlier I defended Mark Noll's decision not to vote for President against Chuck Colson's charges that Noll is shirking his Christian obligations. I've received some thoughtful objections to my invocation of Hitler-Mussolini in the course of that defense. Professor John O'Callaghan asks "Isn’t Colson’s point easier to make because neither George Bush nor John Kerry is the moral and political equivalent of Hitler or Mussolini? The more political rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding, are we really living in anything like Nazi German or Fascist Italy?" (His own helpful essay is the subject of this earlier post.) And reader Patrick O'Hannigan writes:
Did you really mean to answer Colson's substantive point by painting with an entirely hypothetical brush, or are you implying that the "moral conflict many pro-life progressives are facing" really is on the order of Hitler vs. Mussolini? The first approach is weak; the second dishonest.Read Colson's argument again: he alludes to a search for the best people we
can find to lead us. In what scenario would that yield a choice between
Hitler and Mussolini? None that I can think of. Even in purely historical
terms, Hitler and Mussolini shared the stage with Churchill and Roosevelt,
who were manifestly better men, in spite of their considerable flaws.Wondering what Colson would say to Noll if different candidates were
involved is the rhetorical equivalent of a parlor game: by following Alice
down the rabbit hole to Wonderland, it implicitly concedes that Colson has
the stronger argument in the reality we already know.
I don't read Colson's argument so narrowly -- he's not telling Noll that Christians should vote in light of the candidates' merits in this particular election. Rather, he seems to cast voting as a blanket obligation. He plainly states that "voting is not an option for Christians," but a "biblical duty." His foundation for this assertion is not convincing. Colson's characterization of American Christians as God's "instruments for appointing leaders" is suspect, especially in light of his supporting assertion that "Just like Samuel in the Old Testament, we are commissioned to find the very best people we can who are best able to lead us." Samuel received direct revelation from God that Saul (and later David) were to lead Israel. As a one-person appointments committee, he anointed them. Deal done.
How is this biblical cherry-picking helpful to figuring out a Christian's voting obligations in 21st century America? Certainly it shows that God acts in human history, but it does not show that the Christian's most effective option for serving as an instrument of God's purpose is to support one of two candidates offered up every four years by secular political parties, as though God has designated either the Democrat or Republican each time around, and we simply need to decipher which one. (If the obligation stems from the duty to minimize harm/evil, then third-party candidates are not viable options, I presume, for they present no realistic chance of being elected. Besides, God would never back a certain loser, right?) I agree that Christians should work to elect the best leaders possible, but that work won't always result in an election-day choice that all Christians can embrace.
Even if Colson's conception of civic obligation can be narrowed to the Kerry-Bush choice, I think it's a non-starter. If we're unable to construct a blanket obligation for Christians to vote, how can we construct that obligation in this election? If there's one thing that the discussion on Mirror of Justice has evidenced, it's that reasonable, thoughtful Christians can disagree passionately about the moral status of the Bush and Kerry candidacies. Further, the moral failings of each candidate's agenda do not necessarily lend themselves to ranking in a way that makes a morally problematic candidate palatable. ("Disregard of the international community is bad, lax environmental protection is really bad, but abortion is really really bad, so I'll vote for Bush.") I certainly was not intending to equate Bush-Kerry with Hitler-Mussolini, but if we can't discern an obligation to choose between the latter, I don't think there's an obligation to choose between the former.
Rob
On October 31, Professor John O'Callaghan continued this thoughtful reflections on the election at the Ethics and Culture Forum. He concludes his reflections with these thoughts:
"So one's own political prudence must judge in such a situation which candidate is promoting the proportionately lesser evil; voting for such a candidate is an effort to limit the damage to the common good. Particular judgments here may be very difficult, but it is antecedently improbable that there will be some kind of perfect equality in the harm done to the common good by the respective candidates. Here I would recommend the excellent discussion posted earlier on this blog (10/19/04) by Brad Lewis on "Proportionate Reasons." In particular, in my previous post I argued that given the fundamental role of innocent human life in the constitution of the common good, in our own day it is difficult to see that there is any proportionate evil that one may judge to be greater than policies that legitimate and promote the taking of human life in abortion and euthanasia, or as David and Brad have pointed out in earlier posts, the deliberate production and subsequent destruction of a human life solely to farm its parts out for the benefit of others. All the other goods that must be protected in the common good find their point and purpose in the flourishing of innocent human life. They are empty "values" subject to social whim, prejudice, and cunning when divorced from the fundamental good of human life itself. No doubt there will be many who with good will may disagree with me in that judgment. When I listen to the brighter angels of my nature, and avoid irascibility, the thought that one or other of us will be wrong does not inflame me. But, regardless, none of us can fail to act to limit the greater evil we judge to be pressing in upon us. If Aquinas' discussion is relevant to our day, prudence demands better of us.
"What do I want if I love someone else? I want him to be happy. In charity, Thomas says, we love others 'as companions in the sharing of beatitude.'"(Josef Pieper, Happiness and Contemplation) On All Saints and the eve of All Souls, pray for our country, and those who would lead it, and "pray for me, as I will for thee, that we may all meet merrily in heaven.""
John O'Callaghan
[email protected]
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
