There has been much discussion lately, deservedly so, of the need for the government to reflect a level of morality, or at least respect deeply held religious beliefs with respect to fundamental issues of life. Indeed, much of the discourse regarding threats to religious freedom in the last several weeks has included dialog around women, their rights, their dignity, and the dignity of all life. This is an important discussion in which we see tension between media messaging, governmental actions, and some of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I would like to turn that discussion to another area. Here the government's criminal law and the Church stand together. If this week is any example, together they wage a battle, perhaps a losing one, with our culture of violence. This too involves issues of dignity, autonomy, and life itself – it is the dark world of domestic violence.
The Commonwealth of Virginia finds itself the setting for two dramatic domestic violence sagas. The Commonwealth and all of metropolitan Washington have been following the trial of George Huguely who was convicted this week of second degree murder for the killing of his former girlfriend and fellow University of Virginia classmate, Yeardley Love. In so doing, the jury concluded that Huguely caused her death by blunt force trauma to her head after he violently put a hole through her bedroom door and physically attacked her. His statement to the police, while minimizing the violence, included an admission to kicking in her door, shaking her, and holding her to the floor to "calm her down." The case included a history of violence and threats by Huguely against Love. Consequently, it has been a "teaching moment" for parents of young girls about the dangers of domestic violence and the realities of the often overlooked area of teen dating violence. This tragic story has been a reminder of need to recognize the signs of a violent relationship and to intervene to protect the victim.
This is an area on which the Church and the government stand together. The state condemned the defendant's actions and pursued justice against Huguely despite his privileged life. If Henry Hart is correct and a conviction is "the moral condemnation of the community," the jury did so as well. In 1995, John Paul II in his Letter to Women clearly condemned violence against women as an affront to their inherent dignity.
When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity which women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?
Well, if the other Virginia story is any measure, not much of this message has been heard.
Virginia also is the home of popular singer Chris Brown, currently in the middle of his 5 year probation for felony assault of his then girlfriend, the even more popular singer, Rihanna. In 2009 he pled guilty to severely beating her which, according to the search warrant affidavit in the case, included attempting to force her from a vehicle, shoving her head against a window, repeatedly punching her in the face, biting her, choking her to such an extent that she began to lose consciousness, and threatening to kill her. Again, here the government stood behind the dignity of women by pursuing felony criminal charges against Brown, notwithstanding his prominence. Yet half way through that probation, the Grammy's have featured him and honored him. Furthermore, he and Rihanna have leaked remixes of songs in which they collaborate together. Rihanna's remix is particularly disturbing, and too explicit for this blog. Suffice it to say NPR described the lyrics as "blurr[ing] the line between pleasure and pain, and could be interpreted as alluding to Brown's assault of her."
From this carnage, parents attempt to act upon John Paul II's 17-year-old message and resurrect a teaching moment. Such a moment can lead to powerful opportunities to help protect girls from the dangers of domestic violence, to help them recognize that it affects even the most famous and privileged, and to engage bystanders in appropriate responses. However, the culture provides an alternative message. These two extremely popular performers (not to mention the industry behind them) contribute to a different dispatch to their teen followers: rather than end the violent relationship – continue collaborating, dismiss the violence against women, exploit the scandal, and reinforce gendered stereotypes that suggest such violent assaults are at best excusable and at worst somehow the fault of the victim. Given this kind of culture, is it any wonder that a college student quoted in the NPR story referred to this recent collaboration as indicating "love?" Even more disturbing, teens assembling for a fall 2011 Brown concert in Baltimore, Maryland blamed the "incident" on Rihanna's. Baltimore…not far from where Yeardley Love attended high school. No doubt several will wonder, what is the harm? One measure of the result of this social messaging is this: after the Grammy win- several documented tweets from young women stating, "Chris Brown can beat me."
So as we wrestle with these tensions between government and people of faith, it is a reminder that, even when on the same side of an issue, such solidarity is not enough to affect change. We must also combat the social messages that perpetuate the lack of dignity afforded to all. February's role as Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month is brought all the more sharply into focus with these examples of how far our society still has to progress in order to ensure the life and dignity of our young women. Perhaps we would do well to remember and share John Paul II's words in Mulieris Dignitatem, that "woman cannot become the "object" of "domination" and male "possession.""
Yesterday, Disctrict Court Judge Jeffrey White granted the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and ordered OPM to enroll the same-sex spouse of a federal court employee in its benefit program in a 43-page opinion finding DOMA to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. White was a George W. Bush appointee.
One of the loveliest upshots of that Friday and weekend work with the New York Fed that I mentioned two days ago has been the opportunity that it has afforded to spend time with, get to know, and ultimately join some of the banking and economic policy committees of the OWS movement. (Zuccotti Park is but two blocks from the Fed and my little Wall Street apartment.) In this connection, like very many people across America and the world, I thought Mayor Bloomberg's 'crackdown' on the movement this past November wrong-headed. One upshot of that conviction was this OpEd published in the New York Daily News at the time, a longer rendition of which was posted on Dorf on Law here.
It strikes me now that there is an instructive analogy to be drawn between that case and the case of the first rendition of the HHS's mandate - 'Mandate 1.0' - that we've all discussed here over the past several weeks. The link has to do with the 'prudence' one might hope to find in such government actions as sometimes implicate First Amendment jurisprudence or the values given expression in that jusrisprudence. Pursuant to this prudence, wise government functionaries accommodate exercises of First-Amendment-implicating freedoms even when not, strictly speaking, constitutionally required to do so. Why do we hope, as I put it, to find this form of prudence in government decisions? I think there are are least two complementary reasons. One is that our political society at large often learns much from that 'witness' which is the flowering and flourishing of 'alternative' takes on many practices and lifeways that majorities have come to take for granted. Another is that individual citizens often grow and flower as human souls both through witnessing and through participating in such experiments - recapitulating, in their less fateful and momentous but nevertheless important ways, the transformative experience of the 'upper room.'
For my part, I've found the inspiringly earnest, insistently pluralistic, and above all the determinedly democratic egalitarian culture that flowered in Zuccotti Park a particularly salutary case in point - so starkly so that I very much hope those who are reading this post will read the descriptions provided in the two articles linked to above. (The full length version at Dorf on Law includes brief description of the 'Tree of Life' at which multiple faiths were officially represented and honored in Zuccotti, including that of the many members of the Catholic Worker movement who were present throughout the 'occupation.') But likewise important cases in point are, quite often, the lifeways and worldviews lived and given 'witness' by the healthcare-providing, education-supplying, and other institutions founded by our many faith communities. Hence my provisional welcoming, along with that by many others, of the HHS's recent announcement that Mandate 2.0, once more fully specified, will indeed be accommodative. I await that further specification as eagerly as I do the return of the 'Occupiers' to Zuccotti Park come this spring.
Many people no longer seem to have a clue why the Catholic Church should also have a state that is called the Holy See. Some of us seem to imagine it is purely for reasons of vanity.
But only someone lacking the faintest knowledge of church history could think such a thing because all down the centuries rulers have sought to bend popes to their will. . . .
Well, not explicitly. But, it sure fits (from Ch. 14):
“The judge placed his hands on the ground. He looked at his inquisitor. This is my claim, he said. And yet everywhere upon it are pockets of autonomous life. Autonomous. In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation.”
Doesn't that last sentence capture pretty well the attitude of a certain kind of illiberal, monist liberalism?
In a challenge to Washington State's requirement that pharmacists dispense Plan B even where a pharmacist has a religious objection to doing so, the federal district judge ruled today that the pharmacy regulations were neither neutral nor generally applicable and could not survive strict scrutiny review. Judge Ronald Leighton's opinion is here, and the Becket Fund's press release is here
"Should Federal Judges Cite the Bible as Authority for Constitutional Decisions?" That is the question Professor Richard Pildes asks over at Balkinization. The occasion for asking it is a concurrence by Judge Calabresi in Ognibene v. Parkes, decided by the Second Circuit earlier this year -- a case about campaign finance and the First Amendment, in which Judge Calabresi criticizes the Citizens United decision. In that concurrence, Judge Calabresi uses Luke 21:1-4 as an epigraph for his opinion.
I am not certain that I agree with Professor Pildes that this qualifies as reliance on the Bible as "authority" for a constitutional decision, at least unless the modifier "persuasive" is added. But even "persuasive authority" is not quite right. The body of Judge Calabresi's concurrence discusses American constitutional caselaw alone, and it seems to me that this provides the "authority" for his opinion. In his post, Prof. Pildes describes the use of the epigraph as providing "normative support" for Judge Calabresi's views, and this seems closer, though also not exactly right.
I have always thought that epigraphs are not argument. They are not even suggestions of argument. Their function is to orient the reader obliquely toward a certain mood or manner of thinking. In fact, the elegance of the epigraph consists exactly in refraining from doggedly hitting the reader over the head with argumentative authority. "Authority" is hardly the point.
All the same, I found some of the thoughtful questions that Professor Pildes asks about the uses to which epigraphs with religious origins may be put, and by whom, and in what circumstances, and with what political valences, extremely interesting.
Yesterday I wondered whether we were going to start seeing the "Sharia" label attached to any request by a religious believer for conscience-based exemptions from generally applicable laws. Apparently that train has already left the station. Consider this statement:
"Religious rules should end ‘at the door of the temple’ and give way to the ‘public law’ laid down by Parliament.”
“To me, there’s nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us. Why not then say sharia can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn’t work,” he added.
And who's the "he?" Must be some guy sitting in his basement writing a blog post for an audience of three, right?. He couldn't be the chairman of the British Equality and Human Rights Commission, could he?
At Public Discourse, Robert Miller makes well a point I've been trying to figure out how to make, and does so better than I would have. (So, check it out.) Nutshell version: Assuming that a Catholic institution could, given all the givens, non-culpably comply with the mandate (whether what Brother Hockett calls "Mandate 1.0" or the floated-but-not-yet-existing "Mandate 2.0"), it does not follow that the mandate is unobjectionable, or not inconsistent with a commitment to religious freedom. As Miller puts it:
. . . The fundamental problem with the contraception mandate is not that complying with it involves objecting employers in moral wrongdoing. At least for some employers, it may well do that, and this certainly makes the mandate morally objectionable, but this is not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem with the mandate is that it coerces some people into doing what they think is wrong, and this problem remains regardless of whether the coercion excuses the actions of the people being coerced.
As Helen Alvere and Kim Daniels explain on National Review Online:
. . .over the past several days we’ve heard House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others repeatedly ask those who oppose the contraceptive mandate, “Where are the women?”
Here we are.
We listened to prominent women purport to speak for us. We watched them duck the fundamental religious-liberty issues at stake. And we saw them assume that all women view cheaper contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs as unqualified goods.
In response, we circulated an open letter to a few dozen of our female friends in support of the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage, and family life. The letter spread, and in 72 hours we received some 750 signatures from a diverse group of women across the country, including women serving overseas. Signatures are still flooding in. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, mothers, business owners, community volunteers, scholars — women from all walks of life are proud to stand together with the Catholic Church and its invaluable witness.
I was one of the 750 woman signing on to this letter from the beginning, though my name hasn't yet made it onto the website. More from the letter.....
Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.
Another great contribution to this "roar" is Erika Bachiochi and Catherine Pakaluk's article questioning just how good the Pill has really been for women:
And this points to an unresolved difficulty with the contraceptive revolution, which was supposed to serve women above all: Women on the whole disproportionately bear the burden of the new sexual regime. They are expected to dose themselves with a Group 1 carcinogen for approximately two-thirds of their fertile years. They sustain greater emotional costs from casual sex. They are at greaterriskofcontractingSTDs and disproportionately suffer from their long-term consequences, such as cervicalcancer and fertilityloss.And even after 50 years with the Pill, as many as half of all pregnancies are still unintended. Women, not men, must make the heart-wrenching choice between abortion, reckoned a tragic outcome even by its supporters, and bearing a child with little to no paternal support. After all, since children were negotiated out of the bargain by the availability of contraception and abortion, men have secured a strong rationale to simply ignore or reject pregnancies that result from uncommitted sexual relations. Nobel-laureate economist George Akerlof predicted nearly two decades ago that this would lead directly to the feminization of poverty, as it ruefully has.
