Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Friday, September 3, 2004

Call for Papers

[I received this notice, and thought that the readers of this blog would be interested.]

The University of St. Thomas has formed a new center, the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, a collaboration between the university’s Center for Catholic Studies and its School of Law. The Murphy Institute will hold its inaugural conference on April 7-9, 2005, at the School of Law building in downtown Minneapolis. The theme is “The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Good Society.” Members of this list, we hope, will be interested in submitting a paper proposal or attending the conference.

The call for papers: Click here.

Steve Smith on "Toleration and Liberal Commitments"

Steve Smith has a new paper up on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This essay defends the ideal of toleration as against familiar criticisms coming from opposing directions. The "illiberal" objection argues that toleration is too permissive. Given the choice, why should we knowingly put up with error? The "ultraliberal" objection, reflected among other places in current free speech and religion clause jurisprudence, complains that "mere" toleration is condescending and illiberal because it declines to treat ideas and persons with equal concern and respect. This essay argues that both sorts of objections are misconceived and that if the valued liberal commitments of the American constitutional tradition are to be maintained, then we will necessarily have to embrace an ideal of toleration. The essay further argues that a renewed commitment to toleration is especially imperative at the present time as we try to cope, internally, with an exhausted ultraliberal discourse reflected in increasingly ineffectual Supreme Court opinions and, externally, with a so-called "clash of civilizations" or cultures that calls upon us to defend our central values rather than complacently pretend to rest in an "overlapping consensus" that needs no more foundational justification.

Rick

Thursday, September 2, 2004

Campus Connection

The campus ministry of Catholic Relief Services has put together an effective website called Campus Connection to help students, faculty, and staff engage the world around them.

Rob

Kerry and Conversion

With the rise of the secularist/religious split on matters of culture, law and politics, sniping between evangelicals and Catholics has decreased remarkably in the last twenty years. There are still occasional signs of tension, however, especially when a vocally moral evangelical is pitted against a purportedly amoral Catholic in the race for President.

Marvin Olasky, the intellectual guru of compassionate conservatism, recently wrote a column in which he characterizes himself and Bush as not having had "to save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don't have to be saviors. John Kerry, once-born, has no such spiritual support, nor do most of his top admirers in the heavily secularized Democratic Party."

In his speech last night, Zell Miller indicated that he "can identify with someone [like Bush] who has lived that line in 'Amazing Grace,' 'Was blind, but now I see.'" Given that this line was delivered in the midst of a maelstrom of Kerry-bashing, the implication is clear: Kerry is still blind, or (more charitably) that he simply lacks such a "road to Damascus" moment.

Catholics are "born again" (born of the flesh and born of the spirit), but most lack the singular conversion experience of evangelicals, instead being gradually formed as Christians through a series of deliberate decisions. Why on earth would calling attention to this distinction be relevant in today's religious and political climate? Is there enough lingering anti-Catholic sentiment among the GOP's evangelical base that Olasky or Miler might think that an "us versus them" signal holds promise? Maybe these are just stray comments, but they struck me as holdovers from a thankfully bygone era.

Rob

Wednesday, September 1, 2004

The "God Gap" Revisited

Beliefnet's Steven Waldman has an interesting blog tracking religious themes at the GOP convention. Previously, he has argued that the purported "God gap" between the parties is simply a church attendance gap, pointing out that other measures of faith (e.g., daily prayer) do not vary too much between Dems and Republicans. He uses this thesis to put a different spin on the question that has been discussed endlessly by the politically and religiously minded among us:

At a panel discussion Tuesday morning, Michael Cromartie, head of Evangelical Studies at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, suggested that the gap exists because 15% of Democratic voters now are secular, and the party has avoided religious rhetoric and moved to the left on social issues in order to appease that voting block. That in turn has made the party less welcoming to religious voters. The two Democratic panel members disagreed with each other over whether that was true. Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton's former press secretary, felt there was a grain of truth to that theory, but his old friend John Podesta, the former White House chief of staff, said he couldn't recall a single meeting where any adjustments in rhetoric or policy were made to appeal to secularists. "I just have never heard that point made," he said.

This being the Republican convention, the focus was on what mistakes the two political parties have made. But it's also time we asked what this God gap says about religion. Conversely, the question is not why less-frequent attenders vote Democratic, but why Democrats are drawn to church less often. Why are progressive houses of worship unable to create an urgent reason for liberal people to show up on Sundays?

That's a good question, and undoubtedly many factors are implicated. Skeptics will say that attendance drops as the threat of eternal damnation recedes into the background. Let me offer one other possibility. I've attended conservative evangelical churches, Episcopal churches that fall squarely in the "progressive" column, and Catholic churches. In my experience, as churches become more suspicious of the "supernatural" elements of scripture and church tradition (a suspicion that pervades much of mainline Protestantism and provided the foundation for modern evangelicalism's rise), it becomes more difficult to maintain a communal conception of Christianity as a set of transcendent truth claims. Commitments to worthy social causes and fellowship must be central to any Christian congregation, but without an abiding belief that the faith tradition is more than a tradition, church involvement has the tendency to take its place among the ranks of worthwhile activities to be pursued as time permits, rather than a non-negotiable manifestation of a person's core convictions.

Rob

Tariq Ramadan Responds

Today's New York Times features an op-ed by Professor Tariq Ramadan, whose visa to enter the United States (to teach at the University of Notre Dame) was recently revoked (apparently at the urging of the Department of Homeland Security). Ramadan's intellectual project -- one that he says is "inherently controversial" -- is "to foster communities within the Islamic world that are seeking a path between their often bitter experience with some American and European policies on the one hand, and the unacceptable violence of Islamic extremists on the other." In this op-ed, Ramadan responds to his "detractors", who have "tried to demonstrate that [he has] links with extremists, that [he is] an anti-Semite and that [he despires] women." Ramadan writes:

For 20 years, I have dedicated myself to studying Islamic scripture, Western and Eastern philosophies and societies, and built an identity that is truly Western and truly Muslim. I make no apologies for taking a critical look at both Islam and the West; in doing so I am being true to my faith and to the ethics of my Swiss citizenship. I believe Muslims can remain faithful to their religion and be able, from within pluralistic and democratic societies, to oppose all injustices.

Here is an article from the student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame, describing, among other things, the reactions of Fr. Malloy, the President of the University, to the revocation of
Ramadan's visa.

Rick

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Creating a Pro-Parent Society

We hear a lot in the media about the legal viability of certain family structures, but significantly less about the practical viability of family structures, traditional or otherwise. Yale law prof Anne Alstott has made available sample chapters of her book, No Exit: What Parents Owe Their Children and What Society Owes Parents. It certainly should be of interest to those concerned with facilitating a concept of parenting based on single-minded devotion and care. Here's the abstract (link courtesy of Larry Solum's Legal Theory blog):

America's public policies have not kept pace with our rising standards for child-rearing. Child-rearing was once an economic bargain for parents who received a little worker and a retirement policy with each child. But thanks to technological and social change, parenthood has become a uniquely costly pursuit: we expect parents to protect their children's developmental chances, even at the expense of their own opportunities. Today, parenthood requires a decades-long restructuring of one's economic and personal life. Society expects parents to provide the continuity of care that is critical for children's development. Put succinctly, we tell parents Do Not Exit, and the great majority of parents - especially mothers - comply.

But the economic costs of this No Exit obligation are enormous, and borne primarily by mothers. In every income class, mothers work less, earn less, and achieve less (in economic terms) than childless women and than men. Mothers interrupt their working lives at high rates, and as a consequence, they enter middle- and old-age with less financial independence.

The libertarian reply is, essentially, So what? Mothers know - or ought to know - what they are getting into, and they should plan for the economic burdens of parenthood by saving, marrying, or remaining childless if need be. On this view, it is unfair to ask the childless to subsidize their peers who choose parenthood.

This book aims to demonstrate that the libertarian assertion of equality between parents and nonparents is superficial, because it overlooks the child in the picture. Once we recognize the social importance of parents' No Exit duty, we can begin to understand society's special obligation to parents.

The book also proposes a set of public policies that would offer practical assistance to modern families. Caretaker resource accounts would provide parents with $5,000 per year, to be used for child care, parents' own education, or retirement savings. For the average family, this program would mark a major new commitment of resources that could improve parents' own economic fortunes. At the same time, the program would permit parental choice, leaving it up to individuals to decide whether to stay in the workforce or take time out or in part-time work. Moreover, the initiative would direct resources to individuals, avoiding the partiality and potential side-effects of some family-friendly workplace initiatives.

Another set of policies, termed life-planning insurance, would enrich the resources offered to parents of special needs children - a group for whom the No Exit obligation is especially costly. Today, public policy underwrites special education and health care for children with disabilities - but largely ignores the economic plight of their parents, who often find their own working lives permanently disrupted.


Rob

A Double Standard?

Here's an example of what I mean by the double standard applied by at least some pro-life conservatives to pro-choice leaders within the GOP. Jerry Falwell seems to have discovered a pluralist, big-tent approach to governing, conceding that the "GOP is not a church":

Apparently some media reports have indicated that a few religious conservatives are upset that a preponderance of moderate and liberal members of the party has been assigned the high-profile primetime speaking slots.

The fact is, I have no problem with this. I think the party has picked the most visible and energetic speakers for this important event. I certainly don’t agree with some of the political positions of Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki and a few other high-profile party members, but I join them in their support of President Bush in this critical election. They are important voices of this diverse party.

I’m sure there are a few evangelical pastors who believe the Republican Party should be reflective of a Southern Baptist church, but that would be a big mistake. The party represents a wide range of political viewpoints and the leadership understands this; the GOP is not a church.

Most religious conservatives would agree with me that, as long as the Republican leadership remains chiefly pro-family, pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, we will continue to favor the party. At this time, the Republican platform, while not perfect, reflects respect for unborn life and traditional marriage — key issues for evangelicals.

I’ve often said that I wouldn’t have voted for my own mother if she were an abortion-rights candidate. But in the complex game of politics, we must work with people who have conflicting viewpoints on momentous issues in order to secure the greater good for the nation. While we must never compromise our Bible-based values in our churches, most conservative people of faith realize that we must work with a sense of cooperation in the political realm.

Besides noting some "disagreement," he offers not a peep of protest. You don't often hear Falwell strike such a laid-back, inclusive pose when the conversation turns to the Dems or the state of the country in general. Can you imagine him saying that "gays are important voices within this diverse country"? Indeed, much of his Moral Majority effort could have been met with his same logic: "the USA is not a church."

For another example, look at the Catholic League's index of recent press releases. Plenty on Kerry and abortion, but not a word (as far as I can tell -- please correct me if I'm wrong) about the GOP convention speakers.

Not to suggest that Falwell and the Catholic League comprise the universe of pro-life voices (heaven forbid), and certainly the convention lineup has not been embraced throughout the party, but I do find it puzzling that two of the most steadfast forces within the pro-life movement seem so willing to look the other way for perceived political expediency.

Rob

UPDATE: Add Lou Sheldon and his Traditional Values Coalition to the list. CBS reports Sheldon explaining that "We are very pleased that [the] campaign and the convention committee has selected people like Giuliani, Pataki, and Schwarzenegger to speak." "Their talk is for the undecided people watching television," Sheldon says. "President Bush is smart and Karl Rove is smart," he adds. "The undecided are not conservative Christians."

"Moderates" on Abortion

One of my pet peeves is the old-media habit of referring to politicians and political positions of which they approve as "moderate", no matter where on the political spectrum those politicians and positions actually fall. For example, the old-guard reporters have for the last few days returned -- as they do every four years -- to what they regard as the Republican Party's opportunistic and disingenuous use of "moderates" at its conventions. These folks include, we are told, Mayor Giuliani and Sen. McCain.

Here's the problem: McCain has, in fact, a 100% pro-life record. He is a "moderate" to unoriginal reporters because, well, they like him. (Oddly enough, the press loves McCain precisely because of his dangerous and extreme disdain for the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause). On the other hand, Mayor Giuliani is, on abortion, quite an extremist: He opposes all restrictions, all regulations, all notification laws, etc., and supports public funding. (By the way, I do not agree with my friend Rob's post, below, suggesting that GOP-leaning Catholics give Giuliani, etc., a "pass" on abortion. That's not my experience, anyway) (UPDATE: Here's a link, thanks to Amy Welborn, to a story about a new American Life League ad, criticizing pro-abortion-rights Republican politicians.)

In fact, the "moderate" position on abortion -- judging by polls, etc. -- is much more like George Bush's than it is like Rudy Giuliani's (or John Kerry's): abortion is bad, some restrictions are fine, informed consent and parental-notice laws make sense, partial-birth bans and born-alive-infant protections are good intermediate steps, let's change the culture, etc. So -- why does the press get this so wrong? Is it because political reporters tend overwhelmingly to hold fairly extreme pro-choice views, but also -- like all of us -- insist on regarding themselves and their friends as moderate, sensible, and reasonable?

Rick

Monday, August 30, 2004

Abortion Politics and the GOP

Amy Sullivan has an interesting post at Washington Monthly (thanks to Christianity Today for spotting it):

Remember last spring, when John Kerry couldn't take a step without some reporter trying to examine his molars for evidence of unswallowed communion host? The issue of whether or not Kerry should, as a pro-choice Catholic, take communion was pressed by conservative Catholics with a partisan agenda and it was wholeheartedly accepted as a relevant story by most major news outlets.

How many reporters do you think are going to ask Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki or Arnold Schwarzenegger if they should refrain from taking communion? Or will call up the bishops of these men and ask whether these PCRCs should be denied communion? Shouldn't it be a story that Republicans get a pass for the sole reason that they are Republicans? And that certain conservative Catholic organizations only care about abortion when they can use the issue to knock around Democrats?

The silence coming out of the Catholic League regarding the prominence of a bunch of heretical babykillers at the GOP Convention is simply deafening.

Sullivan's argument can be expanded to raise questions about the GOP itself. Perhaps groups like the Catholic League are willing to cut back a bit on their prophetic role in order to facilitate what they perceive as the bigger picture considerations of the current political reality. The current political reality, though, may be murkier than it seems. The apparent double standard necessitated by the GOP's convention strategy lends support to those who are skeptical about the sincerity of the GOP leadership's intentions regarding abortion law. If the GOP wins the election by giving itself a pro-choice face, what does that say about the centrality of the pro-life position to its platform? Certainly you won't see a convention lineup of speakers calling for taxes on the wealthy to be raised, even though that could appeal to many swing voters. Is the pro-life commitment an identity-defining issue for the GOP hierarchy, or is it simply a mantra that ensures the continued party allegiance of abortion-focused evangelicals and Catholics?

Rob