I agree with Rob that the Pope's call for "an acknowledgment of Europe's Christian heritage in the EU Constitution" takes place in the context of an increasingly dishonest (in ignoring Christianity's formative influence), and not merely secular, culture. Some might defend the present Pledge, though, precisely to forestall the "forgetting" we see going on in Europe.
Also, does it matter for Michael and Rob that the Pope (I assume) believes not merely that Europe should acknowledge Europe's historical roots in Christianity, but that Europe should re-Christianize, too? Doesn't the Pope desire "ongoing normative assertion[s]", too?
And, while Rob and I agree that an opinion reversing the Ninth Circuit on the ground that "under God" is meaningless should hardly be welcomed by believers, it is not clear to me, as a normative matter, that the "framework of Establishment Clause jurisprudence," such as it is, matters much. That the term "under God" -- understood as bearing some meaning -- sits uneasily with O'Connor-ism indicts the latter more than the former, it seems to me.
I'm still not sure what to think about the Pledge case. The Constitution, correctly understood, permits the current form, for better or worse. It seems to me that "under God" is defensible as a rough-and-ready claim about our founders' vaguely theistic orientation, and perhaps also as an aspiration. The danger, though, as Rob has explained persuasively, is that the term becomes a source of national self-satisfaction, even idolatry, and distracts from our national failings.
Michael has asked whether the Pope's call to include an acknowledgment of Europe's Christian heritage in the EU Constitution is similar to the inclusion of religious references in our public documents, including the pledge of allegiance. At least as far as the inclusion of "under God" in our pledge, I believe the Pope's call is a fundamentally different and more defensible example of religion's entry into the public square. The course and tenor of the EU Constitution and pledge controversies speak volumes about the wildly divergent conceptions of church and state in Europe and America.
I have yet to read a coherent -- much less compelling -- argument as to why the EU Constitution must be devoid of any reference to Christianity's formative role in the very existence of Europe. It seems that European secularism is rapidly morphing into a worldview that not only privatizes religion, but attempts to pretend that it doesn't exist at all. (See February posts discussing French ban on religious garb in schools.)
The pledge is a different story. Read in plain context, "under God" is not a reference to the founders' beliefs, but an ongoing normative assertion. As such, the secularist objection must be taken seriously. Indeed, as I've posted on earlier (see "Discomfort with the Pledge," Mar. 25), to overcome the secularist objection and remain within the framework of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, one must almost unavoidably give offense to those of us who take religious utterances seriously.
Yale Law School's Professor Stephen Carter delivered this year's Rosenthal Lectures at Northwestern University School of Law. Professor Carter's lectures (given over the past three days) were called "Inconvenient Lives: Just War Theory, Nationalism, and the Rhetoric of Killing." I was able to attend the first two lectures, and was both entertained and challenged. I cannot do justice to Carter's arguments here. His aim, I think, was not so much to apply classical just-war principles to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq (though my sense is that many in the audience wanted him to, and came to the talks already convinced of the conclusion to which such an application would lead). Instead, he challenged his audiences to think about the several ways in which "nationalism" (which he distinguished from "patriotism") and consequentialism cloud purported "just war" arguments -- on "both sides" -- in our public square.
What was particularly inspiring, for me, was Professor Carter's very candid statement that he comes to this subject -- i.e., just-war theory -- not as a theorist or lawyer, but "as a Christian." Since I work at Notre Dame Law School, such a statement did not surprise me the way it (evidently) surprised many of Carter's other hearers. At one point, during a question-and-answer session, Professor Carter was asked, "what would you think about just-war theory if you did not subscribe to that particular ideology (i.e., Christianity)"? Professor Carter remarked, "I don't know. I would not be me if I were not a Christian." This exchange was delightful, I thought. With no rancor or defensiveness, Professor Carter simply refused to play the Rawlsian game of "religion as a hobby," or to pretend that we either can or should be expected to "check our faith at the door" when we think about fundamental questions of justice.
Today's New York Times contains this review of a new book by Susan Jacoby, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism." Here's a quick excerpt of the review:
"Susan Jacoby regrets in her new book that . . . freethinkers have fared poorly in the culture wars that have roiled society since then. In the 19th century and the opening decades of the 20th zealous Protestants secured laws to ban the sale of alcohol, erotic literature and diaphragms, and the teaching of Darwinian theory in public schools. Roman Catholic censors took the offensive during the 1930's with strictures against sex and four-letter words on screen that Hollywood wove into its official Production Code.
For a few decades after, secularists fought back successfully, aided by a strong American Civil Liberties Union and a liberal Supreme Court. But a new Christian right took the offensive in the 1970's and has never let up in a campaign to install its morality in law and custom. Ms. Jacoby concludes her book with a shudder as she describes Justice Antonin Scalia's belief that the American state derives its legitimacy not from the citizenry but from God."
According to the reviewer, Michael Kazin, Jacoby's book includes a defense and appreciation of Paul Blanshard's infamous, bestselling tract, "American Freedom and Catholic Power." (Kazin criticizes this feature of the book). The review concludes:
"Religious diversity untrammeled by government is a hard-won and signal achievement of our society, thanks to the efforts of James Madison and other enlightened minds. It would be unreasonable to suppose that a rigorous humanism could replace this kind of freedom, which remains rare in a world of warring faiths."
I was wondering if my fellow bloggers thought that Pope John Paul II's efforts to get Europe's Christian heritage memorialized in the EU Constitution provides valuable insight into whether our Pledge (or other public symbols or documents) ought to make reference (no matter how vague or ambiguous) to God.
It seems that Kerry did not attempt to go to mass in St. Louis on Sunday, judging by his appearance at a Baptist church that day. He is, however, continuing to make religion a more visible part of his political identity. At the Baptist church, he stated: "The scriptures say: 'It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds.' We look at what is happening in America today and we say: 'Where are the deeds?'" (You can read the entire speech here.) A spokesperson for Bush responded by labeling the speech a "sad exploitation of scripture for political attack." I'm not sure how much room Bush has to complain about the political exploitation of scripture. In any event, given the importance of Catholic voters in the election, and the fact that Kerry is unlikely to drive secularists away no matter how religious he gets, it will be interesting to see if the candidates turn this into a religiosity race. I tend to hope not.
Rob, I think that Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion is well worth the read. It has been several years since I have read it, but if memory serves me the book forcefully makes the case for the proposition that we ought to carefully pay attention to how needs are met. My biggest criticism (again from memory) of the book was that it largely overlooked Catholic service to the poor and marginalized.
Following up on our earlier discussion about the prospect of a politician who dissents from fundamental church teachings on public protection of human life becoming the most prominent Catholic in America, Time magazine has just published an article titled, A Test of Kerry's Faith, which can be found here.
Among various items of note in the article, here are two: First, with respect to concerns about scandal to the faithful that were mentioned earlier, the article quotes a leader in Vatican as saying: "People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."
Second, as was reported in our last discussion, the Archbishop of St. Louis had directed that John Kerry should not present himself for communion in that diocese. Interestingly, the article says that Kerry was expected to campaign in St. Louis last Sunday and that he declared he intends to take Mass while there. Although no reports of what occurred have been received, this raised the prospect of the most prominent Catholic in America being publicly denied communion or affirmatively disobeying the directive of a bishop in his own diocese.
Obviously this story will continue to be played-out over the long (very long) political season ahead.
Stuart Buck (here's his blog), an excellent lawyer and a dear friend, has suffered two strokes. He is only 29 years old. (Here's more info, thanks to Glenn Reynolds). Please join me in praying for him, and his family.
The Religiously Affiliated Law Schools conference at Notre Dame has wrapped up. As Rob's post (below) notes, the conference was an informative, provocative, and thoroughly enjoyable gathering. Our fellow blogger Amy Uelman gave a fascinating talk (based on a soon-to-be-published paper) on the possibilities of a "Trinitarian perspective" for products-liability law. (I'll leave it to her to supply the details). Other speakers discussed strategies for integrating, where appropriate, faith-based insights and claims into law-school courses. Still others -- including our own Mark Sargent -- talked about the challenge of building and maintaining a law school with a meaningful religious identity. I was particularly struck by Mark's exchange with one of the panelists (Dan Morrissey, Dean of Gonzaga's law school) about whether legal-aid clinics, a social-justice orientation, and financial aid for low-income students were enough to comprise a "Catholic" identity or mission. (Mark's "Alternative to the Sectarian Vision" article, linked on the right, pursues these and other questions).
