NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Louisiana's governor and a U.S. senator joined
Friday in calling for the ouster of a local official who refused to
marry an interracial couple, saying his actions clearly broke the law.
Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in
the southeastern part of the state, refused to issue a marriage license
earlier this month to Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay,
who is black. His refusal has prompted calls for an investigation or
resignation from civil and constitutional rights groups and the state's
Legislative Black Caucus.
Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate.
''Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license,'' Jindal said.
Bardwell did not return calls left on his answering machine Friday.
Bardwell has said he always asks if a couple is interracial and, if
they are, refers them to another justice of the peace. Bardwell said no
one had complained in the past and he doesn't marry the couples because
he's worried about their children's futures.
''Perhaps he's worried the kids will grow up and be president,''
said Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and
Justice, referring to President Barack Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas.
Obama's deputy press secretary Bill Burton echoed those sentiments.
''I've found that actually the children of biracial couples can do pretty good,'' Burton told reporters aboard Air Force One as it flew to Texas.
Humphrey and McKay were eventually married by another justice of the
peace, but are now looking into legal action against Bardwell.
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to ask about a marriage
license. She said Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell would not sign
marriage licenses for interracial couples.
Bardwell maintains he can recuse himself from marrying people. Quigley disagreed.
''A justice of the peace is legally obligated to serve the public,
all of the public,'' Quigley said. ''Racial discrimination has been a
violation of Louisiana and U.S. law for decades. No public official has
the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow.''
A spokeswoman for the Louisiana Judiciary Commission said
investigations were confidential and would not comment. If the
commission recommends action to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the matter
would become public.
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said in a statement Bardwell's practices and comments were deeply disturbing.
''Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court
rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country
for too long,'' she said.
Tangipahoa Parish President Gordon Burgess said Bardwell's views
were not consistent with his or those of the local government. But as
an elected official, Bardwell was not under the supervision of the
parish government.
''However, I am certainly very disappointed that anyone representing
the people of Tangipahoa Parish, particularly an elected official,
would take such a divisive stand,'' Burgess said in an e-mail. ''I
would hope that Mr. Bardwell would consider offering his resignation if
he is unable to serve all of the people of his district and our
parish.''
Bardwell, a Republican, has served as justice of peace for 34 years.
He said he has run without opposition each time, but had decided
earlier not to run again. His current term expires Dec. 31, 2014
Philosophers out there, take note: Duke University is holding a conference in honor of the work and memory of my former teacher, Fr. Edward Mahoney, a medievalist who taught for years at Duke. Here are some thoughts I wrote, when he passed away back in January:
My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy. This was in no small part because of the encouragement and example provided by a wonderful teacher, friend, and priest, Prof. Ed Mahoney, who died yesterday. (See Brian Leiter's notice here, and the nice memorial at the Duke Philosophy Department's webpage here.)
"Father Ed" -- a specialist in later medieval psychology, who did important work on the "Great Chain of Being" -- taught me, and many others, Ancient, Medieval, and late-Medieval Philosophy. He was passionately committed to undergraduate education, and he inspired many of us not only to wrestle with difficult, beautiful texts and ideas, but to better appreciate, in a big-picture way, the medieval vision, mind, and cosmology. He ruthlessly gave me the worst grade I received in college, delivering a much-needed ego-check, and then proceeded to help me learn, and get me fired up to learn, in a deeper way than I ever would have without him. He made me think harder, and write better, than I would have, or could have, without his help. He was my teacher before I knew that he was a Catholic priest, and he later became an advisor, counselor, and mentor.
The news about Fr. Ed made me think -- it reminded me -- of how special a great teacher can be. I'm sure all of us (I hope all of us!) were blessed, at some point, with such a teacher. I'm thankful that I was able to tell him how much he meant to me, and that he was able to see, before he passed away, at least some of the fruits of his efforts in my own career. And I hope I'll remember, in my own teaching, how important it turned out to be, for me, that he took the time and expended the efforts that he did.
The "Reform of the Office" task force made draft recommendations today to President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, advocating clarification and some modifications of the church-state rules that currently govern the use of federal funds by faith-based and secular organizations. Although these rules are sometimes said to have been created by the Bush faith-based initiative, other important sources are the Clinton-era "Charitable Choice laws," the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and various U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
The question of restricting religious hiring when federal funds are involved is reserved to the President and was not discussed.
Check out Ryan's Anderson's review-essay, "Reason for Faith," in a recent issue of The Weekly Standard. He concludes, "natural science can reveal how the physical world works but not how we should act in it or what might exist above and beyond it; that, while physics is important, it is silent about metaphysics; and that those who look to the Bible for details on biology or cosmology had better look elsewhere."
I have had the pleasure of meeting many colorful characters so far on the Camino, and it is time to name the most colorful of the first half of the walk. My friend, Peter K. hopes it will be a German. But, before the listing the nominees, a short update. I am in Mansilla, 18.6 km from Leon. The past three nights and mornings have been cold - I´d guess upper 30´s to mid 40´s before warming up nicely during the day. Last night I stayed in a small farm town along a Roman road. Our Albergue, the only one in town had 16 beds, and I think we were full. One of the other pilgrims made a nice fire in the Albergues´s fireplace. Another pilgrim, a French priest, said mass at the local church. I felt like a little kid as I rang the church bell to let the town folks know that mass would be offered. About 5% of the town´s and half the pilgrims attended.
The runner´s up for most colorful pilgrim first half are; 1. The young redheaded American who cooks outside in the courtyard on a packpackers stove even when the Albergue has a kitchen. 2. The Spaniard who always has a posse with him although he started the Camino alone. I wrote about him hosting a dinner party in an earlier post. 3. The Basque, with the kind but strong face, who led the singing at the dinner party. 4. The Aussie who thinks he is on walkabout. 5. The cynical young ex pat who hates the US for all its lies. I don´t even think he likes our new prince of peace. He also doesn´t like the Albergues because there are too many people in them.
The winner is a Cuban who has lived in Madrid for the past 20 years. Some think he is a flirt. I think he has a zest for life. He will run (yes, run with pack on) to a group of tired pilgrims and sing to them to lift their spirits. I have seen him writing notes in the dirt for others to read. At breakfast, he greets everyone in the room. And, what put him over the top as the most colorful were his antics from three or four days ago. I was sitting on a sidewalk with a Frenchmen (who was sharing his lunch with me). We were the only two on the street. I looked up and there was the Cuban acting the part of drum major marching down the street with his walking stick held high with two band members marching in formation (can two march in formation?) behind him.
Sorry Peter, no Germans in the finals. I have met many great Germans. Some have been crazy enough to start the Camino at their own houses, walking from Augsburg (as reported earlier) and Munich. Most of the Germans have read the comedians book on the Camino but none so far has admitted that he influenced their decision to walk. Among the Germans, there is a good mix of Catholics from the south and Lutherans from the north. Great folks, but not among the six most colorful characters.
Tomorrow I make it to Leon where I will rest Sunday. On Monday, I head out again, joined by two friends from Austin, Bill and Mark.
The New York Times has found another Catholic priest scandal to explore. On today's front page, the paper offers a "rare look at the lengths the Catholic Church goes to to keep clergy members' clandestine relationships hidden." The article documents the sexual affair between Fr. Henry Willenborg, a Franciscan, and a woman he was counseling. Along the way, the reporter notes that these relationships are "hardly unique" and reveal how the Church was "tightfisted" with its money when the child produced by the affair developed cancer. (Given the Church's endless supply of money, greed is the only possible explanation.) There are plenty of questions to ask from a journalistic standpoint (As one reader asked in the comments, If a priest's consensual affair warrants the front page, why didn't the Times deem the sexual affair of a major presidential candidate, John Edwards, newsworthy?), but I'm interested in the Church's handling of this mess. For now, one question jumps out at me: why does the Church insist on confidentiality agreements in these cases? Isn't transparency essential in a situation like this, not only in terms of the confidence we place in the clergy, but in terms of the clergy members' own accountability? The surrounding culture, including the New York Times, would have a harder time shouting "Scandalous cover-up!" whenever sin among the clergy is discovered if the Church stopped acting as though the clergy are sinless.
Catholic Charities “hires to mission.” It does not and need not require that employees or volunteers be Catholics to further its mission. If it did so require, it would be discriminating on the basis of religion. When it requires that its directors be Catholics, it discriminates on the basis of religion, but that discrimination is necessary to further its mission. Faith-based social service organizations that do not proselytize, generally, can hire without regard to religion in furthering their mission.
I disagree. Catholic Charities would not be "discriminating on the basis of religion" -- it would not, that is, be engaged in unjustified exclusion of would-be associates -- if it required that "employees or volunteers be Catholics". "Discrimination" is no longer used to mean, in a non-pejorative way, "selection on the basis of some criteria or another". "Discrimination", for us, carries with it a presumption of wrong-ness; when it is tolerated, that toleration needs to be justified and limited, we now think. "Hiring for mission" is not like that.
Steve says that faith-based social-service organizations "that do not proselytize, generally, can hire without regard to religion in furthering their mission." Maybe. It is hard to know, given the overlay of rules that have not required them to proselytize, or that have interfered with their ability to hire-for-mission. But, in any event, from the fact that Steve, or I, or even the directors of the association conclude that the mission of the association does not require hiring co-religionists it does not follow that a decent political community should require, or can justify requiring, that the association adopt a "religion does not matter for mission" hiring practice as a condition of participating in a publicly funded social-welfare program.
Catholic Charities “hires to mission.” It does not and need
not require that employees or volunteers be Catholics to further its mission.
If it did so require, it would be discriminating on the basis of religion. When
it requires that its directors be Catholics, it discriminates on the basis of
religion, but that discrimination is necessary to further its mission.
Faith-based social service organizations that do not proselytize, generally, can
hire without regard to religion in furthering their mission.
Steve writes, here, that it is "possible to exaggerate the need for faith-based organizations to discriminate in the provision of social services." I suppose that's right. That said, I will go into broken-record mode and say that, in my view, it is a mistake to refer to or think about hiring-for-mission as "discrimination." Hiring-for-mission is not bad. It is not something shameful that religious groups are asking the government to tolerate or overlook. It is entirely appropriate for faith-based programs to hire-for-mission, and the fact that they do should not, in my view, cause us any concern when we think about funding their social-welfare operations.
Steve says "the real issue is not about discrimination, but about proselytizing." Again, I do not think we are talking about "discrimination," properly understood, at all. As for proselytizing, we want to be careful about defining the term, but I think Steve's right, and that it is reasonable for the public authority to say "use our public funds for the public purpose that justifies our giving you these funds, and not for something else" (whatever that "something else" might be).
Here, the principle matters. And, as I see it, the principle is that there is nothing that should bother a decent political community about religious social-welfare organizations hiring for mission. (The hiring question, by the way, is different from the client-service question. I think it is clear that the government can say, "if you want the money, serve all comers.")
