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.

Monday, April 21, 2008

A World Without Islam?

Sightings 4/21/08

 

An Islamless World

-- Martin E. Marty

An early deadline prevents our commenting on the papal visit, the religious theme of the week. So, another topic:  Last week we sighted the hard-to-miss, politically-minded preacher Rod Parsley of Ohio, who wants the Christian United States to wage war for the "destruction" of Islam. Suppose he and his "theonomist" allies succeeded?  Ex-CIA man and Vancouver professor Graham E. Fuller gets cover treatment in the January/February Foreign Policy, for his mental game treatment of "A World without Islam?"  The sub-head reads:  "What if Islam had never existed?  To some, it's a comforting thought: No clash of civilizations, no holy wars, no terrorists. Would Christianity have taken over the world?  Remove Islam from the path of history, and the world ends up exactly where it is today."

 

That word "exactly" refers to civilizations, wars, and terrorists, and commits Fuller to having to spell things out exactly.  "Is Islam, in fact, the source of the problems?  If not Islam, Then What?"  First, ethnic wars:  Religious or not, "Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, even Berbers and Pashtuns would still dominate politics in the Middle East."  Before Islam, their ancestors were fighting and, apart from Islam, they still have plenty of issues.

 

After ethnicity, "it's too arbitrary to exclude religion entirely from the equation."  Without Islam, "most of the Middle East would have remained predominantly Christian, in its various sects, as it had been at the dawn of Islam."  A few Zoroastrians and Jews were the only representatives of other religions.  Would harmony with the West have reigned if Christianity had kept a near-monopoly?  Hardly. The Crusades were a Western adventure driven by political, social, and economic needs.  Christianity was only a potent bannered symbol, "a rallying cry to bless the more secular urges of powerful Europeans." Eastern Christians would not have welcomed the Westerners, and Western Christians as readily killed the Orthodox and burned their cities as they did those of Muslims.

 

That was long ago. More recently, in the age of oil, would Christian economic interests in the Middle East have welcomed Western dominators?  He cites chapter and verse before he answers "No!"  "Then there is Palestine."  Would Christians, after millennia of anti-Semitic impulses, have suddenly welcomed Zionists? "And the new Jewish state would still have dislodged the same 750,000 Arab natives of Palestine from their lands even if they had been Christian—and indeed some of them were."  No peace there.

 

As for intra-Christian rivalry, Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity have always had trouble, often lethally expressed.  Orthodox Christians mistrust and fear the West as did their ancestors.  These Orthodox would dominate a Middle East had it remained Christian. Roll calls: "We would still see Palestinians resist Jews, Chechens resist Russians, Iranians resist the British and Americans, Kashmiris resist Indians, Tamils resist the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, and Uighurs and Tibetans resist the Chinese."  Summary:  "It is not an entirely peaceful and comforting picture."

 

Nor would the "New Atheists" who want a non-religious world have anything to offer.  The twentieth century horrors "came almost exclusively from strictly secular regimes: Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, Hitler, Mussolin, Lenin and Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot."  In truth, the conflicts of such a world would parallel those of a world with Islam.  Rather than seek to "destroy" Islam and the Muslims, one infers, it might be better for all peoples of faith to look more in the mirror and less out the window, to promote peace.

----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School

Islam and the Secular State

A new book by my colleague Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Islam and the Secular State (Harvard 2008), has been attracting a great deal of attention.  (Not at all surprisingly.)  A post today at The Immanent Frame:  Secularism, Religion, and the Public Sphere is certainly worth your attention.

Secularism and the paradoxes of Muslim politics

posted by Robert Hefner

Few books in Islamic studies have been as eagerly awaited or intensely debated prior to publication as Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im’s Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a. Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University, An-Na`im has for more than twenty years been a tireless proponent of a deeply religious but liberal-modernist reformation of Islamic politics and ethics. Published just five years after his flight from the Sudan in April 1985 (after the Numeiri regime executed his Sufi teacher, Mahmoud Mohamed Taha), An-Na`im’s Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law established him as one of our era’s most articulate exponents of the Islamic grounds for constitutionalism and human rights.

In a trademark gesture of democratic openness, in late 2003 An-Na`im circulated a draft of his new book to scholars and activists in Turkey, Egypt, the Sudan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, India, and Nigeria. From January 2004 to September 2006, he worked with local Islamic associations in all of these countries to organize workshops and focus groups to discuss and refine the book’s arguments. The English manuscript was also translated into Arabic, Indonesian, Bengali, French, Persian, Russian, Turkish, and Urdu; it was also made available on the Internet. Among the global Muslim intelligentsia, the draft quickly became a cultural event in its own right. The book version of the manuscript will both broaden the discussion and deepen the controversy.

Two things distinguish this new work from An-Na`im’s early writings. The first is his explicit endorsement of a secular state as the best form of government for Muslims and for the flourishing of Islam. In Toward an Islamic Reformation, An-Na`im had dedicated his energies to addressing believers’ understandings of Islam and Shari`a, and had less to say about the appropriate form of the state. As he put it, he hoped “to reconcile Muslim commitment to Islamic law with the achievement of the benefits of secularism within a religious framework.” In this new book, he sets his sights squarely on providing Islamic rationales for secular government.

The second quality that distinguishes this book from his earlier scholarship is its systematic effort to ground arguments in support of freedom, constitutionalism, and secularity on two bodies of research: historical studies of the development of Muslim politics and Shari`a from the early Islamic period to the rise of the Ottoman Empire; and case studies of Shari`a politics in modern India, Turkey, and Indonesia. An-Na`im plumbs the depths of these empirical materials to provide corroborating evidence in support of his larger argument.

The argument has three pillars ...

[To read the rest, click here.]

David Skeel on Evangelicals and Climate Change . . .

. . . here.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Breaking News: Pope meets with sex abuse victims  
National Catholic Reporter
April 17, 2008
 
 
 
Pope Benedict has met with a group of people who were abused by clergy. Read the story here.

Or you may cut and paste the following link into your browser. http://ncrcafe.org/node/1746

Listen to John Allen discuss this event with Tom Fox this evening in a podcast that will be posted to NCRonline.org.

Peter Steinfels Talking With Jon Stewart About Benedict XVI

Polygamy in Texas

[The author of the following piece, Seth Perry, is not related to me.]


Sightings 4/17/08

 

Look at this Tangle of Thorns

-- Seth Perry

 

Almost two weeks ago, Texas authorities raided the sprawling ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Acting on a call from a sixteen-year-old girl inside the compound who said she was being abused by her fifty-year-old husband, law enforcement swept onto the site, seizing property as evidence of widespread sexual abuse, breaking down the door of the group's monumental temple, and removing over four hundred children into state custody.

 

Child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, is generally an easy thing to condemn. Here, however, the alleged criminal acts are knotted with issues of personal choice and religious freedom that we as a public culture are conditioned to respect. To be sure, few people outside of the sect have come to its unqualified defense. Comments from historian and legal scholar Sarah Barringer Gordon sum up the common response: "Allowing differences, creativity and individuality is vitally important," she said, but child abuse "is the end of religious liberty every time." At the same time, a patina of guilt clings to the image of children separated from their mothers, of Texas Rangers using the jaws of life to try to pry open a consecrated temple of God. The guilt has gotten to a doctor working with the children in state custody and their mothers, quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune:  "Even though I don't agree with their lifestyle, I got the impression that in their own little world it made sense."

 

The guilt comes not just from an American sensibility that people ought to be left alone "in their own little world," but also from the details of this particular case that make a certain type of educated reader reluctant to judge. First and foremost is the obvious sexual element. Most modern men would deny fascination with polygamy's promise of sanctioned access to a variety of willing women, but the same fascination surfaces, in designer clothes rather than homespun, in breathless reporting on the exploits of "billionaire playboys," professional athletes, and rock stars. The homespun itself is another problem. "The girls wear long, pioneer-style dresses and keep their long hair pinned up in braids," the Washington Post dutifully reports. Scholars and others wary of the media's thirst for spectacle and sensitive to the human inclination to equate "different" with "wrong" know abject voyeurism when they see it, and our aversion to it makes us want to look away out of respect for the subject.

 

But we have to keep looking. Courts in Texas will decide what laws have been violated, if any, according to the age and relative complicity of girls involved. But raising a girl to believe that the greatest potential for her life lies under the bulk of a man three or four times her age is something beyond a mere crime. Legal categories of abuse aren't deep enough to capture what has been done to a child who refers to the entire planet beyond the fences of a 1,700-acre plot in Texas as the "outsiders' world." 

 

There are certainly reflective, educated women who choose polygamy and can articulate the reasons why; I've met some of them, and they are as appalled by child abuse as anyone else. There may even be such women, married to equally sincere and thoughtful men, in the FLDS Church. Moreover, the FLDS Church has no monopoly on the frustration of the dreams that children deserve to have – inner cities and poor stretches of Appalachia and war zones worldwide do the same, all the time. The combination of systematic social isolation, plural marriage, and a group of men apparently open to marrying girls at menarche, though, localized on a spot in Texas and subject to explicit laws, offers a rare tangible object for the scorn of those who believe that children should be raised with hopes and options.

The most likely scenario going forward is that the state of Texas will lack the resources and ultimately the will to place so many women and children in different lives. The currently dispersed members of the group will follow familiar channels back to where they were a couple of weeks ago, reconstituting the church with a brand new story to tell about themselves and about the threat of the outside world and, saddest of all, a terrifying new lesson to young women about what happens when you call for help. But if the hearings that take place in the meantime create a public discourse that overcomes outsiders' guilt, something worthwhile and lasting may still be accomplished.

 

Seth Perry is a Ph.D. student in the History of Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School.


Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

GOD AND MAN AT NOTRE DAME

Kenneth L. Woodward

[This op-ed, by former Commonweal editor Kenneth Woodward, is published in today's New York Times.]

POPE BENEDICT XVI will give several speeches during his visit to the United States, but the most consequential for American Catholics may be his address to the presidents of Catholic colleges and universities tomorrow.

Benedict has shown himself concerned about preserving the specifically Roman Catholic identity of all Catholic institutions, particularly those in higher education. His predecessor, John Paul II, tried to do this by insisting that Catholic theology professors sign a document called a mandatum affirming their fidelity to the papal teaching. Conservative Catholics are counting on Benedict to enforce this approach.

Yet, because Benedict is at heart a professor, I hope that he recognizes that fidelity to church teachings cannot be coerced.

No question, a Catholic university should be identifiably Catholic. But the problem of institutional identity goes far beyond litmus tests for theologians.

Arguments over the “identity crisis” on Catholic campuses have been going on for 50 years — long enough to realize that there is no single thing that makes a Catholic university Catholic. Indeed, the question of Catholic identity has as much to do with the changes in Catholic students and their parents as it does with faculty members and administrations.

In the early 1960s, half of all Catholic children attended Catholic grade and high schools. The 10 percent or so who went on to college had some 300 Catholic colleges and universities to choose from — more, in fact, than in the rest of the world combined. Catholics were expected to attend one of these; those who wanted to attend, say, an Ivy League college often had to get permission from their pastor.

Today few Catholic students or parents are likely to choose a Catholic university if Princeton or Stanford is an option. A Catholic higher education, in other words, is less prized by many Catholic parents — including complaining conservatives — than the name on the college diploma.

Another difference is this: Well into the 1960s, Catholic college freshmen arrived with a knowledge of the basics of their religion — enough, at least, to question the answers they were given as children or, among the brighter students, to be challenged in theology classes toward a more mature grasp of their faith.

Most of today’s Catholic students, however, have no such grounding. Even the graduates of Catholic high schools, theology professors complain, have to be taught the fundamentals. As one Methodist theologian at Notre Dame wryly put it, “Before I teach my course on marriage I have to tell them first what their own church has to say on the subject.”

No question, Catholic colleges were more “Catholic” then than they are today. Most were small campuses with a liberal-arts curriculum, making it easy to weave theology into the classroom mix. Most teachers were Catholic and many were priests and nuns.

The ’60s changed all that. In 1966, the American Council on Education issued a study that failed to uncover a single Catholic university with a “distinguished or even strong” graduate department. This prompted Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, a leading American Catholic historian, to suggest a radical consolidation: American Catholics should support no more than three Catholic universities, one on each coast and one in between.

Ellis knew it would never happen, given the independence of each university. Yet his pronouncement prompted a contest among Catholic universities in the hope of surviving the final cut. The rush was on to upgrade faculty and facilities, which meant competing for the best teachers and students regardless of religion. Then there was the Second Vatican Council’s urging Catholics to embrace the modern world. This prompted many priests and nuns to abandon Catholic institutions to work “in the world,” further accelerating the need for lay faculty members. Faculty strikes over academic freedom at Catholic universities led many to turn control over to lay-dominated boards of trustees.

Led by the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, the longtime president of Notre Dame, Catholic educators redefined the relationship between church and university. As Father Hesburgh adroitly put it, a Catholic university is the place “where the church does its thinking.” Learning, in other words, is not indoctrination.

Since those transformative years, the number of Catholic colleges and universities has declined by a third. Some secularized, cutting all ties to the church, in order to survive. Others, especially those for women, closed their doors for lack of applicants. Many more grew through compromise: though nominally Catholic, they offered theology as not much more than a series of selections in a menu of course options.

America can still boast of a monopoly of the world’s best Catholic educational institutions. Some are small liberal-arts colleges that have preserved or reinvented classical Catholic humanism. Others are more sectarian, fashioned in reaction to the demand for orthodoxy by John Paul II. A few universities like Notre Dame (my alma mater) have attained elite status while remaining manifestly Catholic.

I hope Pope Benedict will keep this diversity in mind when tomorrow he discusses the issue of institutional identity. I hope, too, that someone in his entourage will point out that there are more Catholic students at many of the big public universities in the Midwest than at any Catholic college. They are there by choice, their own or that of their parents.

What these students and their teachers need is a vision of what it means to be an educated Catholic, not just a lecture on preserving Catholic institutional identity. If Benedict can manage that, his words will be worth remembering.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Recommended Reading

Thomas J. Reese, SJ, former editor of America magazine, is a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.  He writes, in the April 25 issue of Commonweal:

Reforming the Vatican
What the Church Can Learn from Other Institutions


Thomas J. Reese, SJ


Too often when someone proposes the reform of church structures, the reformer is attacked for borrowing from the secular political field, as if this were necessarily a bad thing. But throughout history the Vatican has often imitated the organization of secular political institutions. Today the governance of the church is more centralized than at any time in its history. To make the church more collegial, the Vatican should once again adopt practices of the secular political world.

[What practices does Father Reese recommend that the Vatican adopt?  Click here.

Reese writes, in conclusion:]

These six reforms will not bring about the kingdom of God. No governance structure is perfect, and every reform has negative side effects. But these reforms would help the church follow the principles of collegiality and subsidiarity. It is worth remarking that most of these reforms would mean a return to earlier practices and structures of the church. Of course, spiritual reform and conversion are finally more important than structural reform, but that doesn’t mean that structural reform is unimportant.

What are the chances of such reforms actually taking place? As a social scientist, I’d have to say they’re probably close to zero. The church is now run by a self-perpetuating group of men who know such reform would diminish their power. It is also contrary to their theology of the church. But as a Catholic Christian, I still have to hope.

The Pope and the President

A friend of MOJ sent me this.  (From The Nation, 4/15/08.]  Certainly worth pondering!

The Pope and the President

by John Nichols

   George Bush is certainly not the first American president to try
   and take advantage of a timely papal meeting to advance himself and
   his agenda.

   Pope Benedict XVI, who arrives today for a high-profile visit to the
   United States, took his name from Pope Benedict XV, who consulted
   with Woodrow Wilson when the 28th president was touring Europe with
   the purpose of promoting a League of Nations.

   Bush has no such grand design.

   The current president is merely hoping that – by greeting the
   current Pope Benedict at Andrews Air Force Base, inviting 12,000
   people to an outdoor reception with the pontiff and then hosting a
   Bavarian dinner for the visitor from the Vatican – his own dismal
   approval ratings might be improved by association with a reasonably
   popular religious leader.

   The initiative has been somewhat complicated by the fact that Pope
   Benedict will not attend the dinner.

   But that won’t stop Bush by attempting to bask in the papal glow.

   Perhaps the president should try a different approach.

   Instead of posing with the pontiff he might want to listen to what
   this particular pope has to say about global warming, fighting
   poverty and, above all, promoting peace.

   No one is going to confuse Pope Benedict with the caricature of
   a liberal.

   But the pontiff has made the Vatican a leader is seeking to address
   climate change. Under this pope’s leadership, the Vatican announced
   that it would become the world's first carbon-neutral state.

   He has said that the leaders of the world must do much more to feed
   the poor, fight disease and support the interests of workers rather
   than the bottom lines of corporations.

   And he has bluntly said that Bush’s preemptive attack on Iraq and the
   subsequent occupation of that country does not follow the Catholic
   doctrine of a “just war.”

   Before the invasion, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked whether
   the attack might be considered morally justified under the just-war
   standard. “Certainly not,” he replied, explaining that "the damage
   would be greater than the values one hopes to save."

   After the war began, Cardinal Ratzinger said of the global protest
   movement to prevent the attack: "it was right to resist the war and
   its threats of destruction.”

   Rejecting arguments made by the president and many of his supporters
   that the United States needed to take the lead, this pope argued, “It
   should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make
   decisions for the world."

   It is not secret that George Bush has trouble taking the counsel of
   those who do not tell him what he wants to hear.

   But if this president wants to associate himself with the pope, he
   should begin by listening to the man who has said, "There were not
   sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of
   the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions
   that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking
   ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a
   'just war.'"

   Of course, no rational observer is going to think that George Bush
   will be led by Pope Benedict XVI to pacifism. But Bush cannot claim
   to be taking this papal visit seriously if he will not even entertain
   a discussion of just and unjust wars.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Obama's Catholic Advisors

HT:  americamagazine.org

Obama Announces Catholic Advisors

Today Senator Barack Obama announced his national Catholic advisory committee. The names are a fascinating mix of, well, Catholics--and include some regular and recent America contributors, like Mary Jo Bane, Lisa Cahill, Richard Gaillardetz, Cathy Kaveny and David O'Brien. And congratulations to Grant Gallicho, associate editor at our sister (brother?) publication, Commonweal. But what, no Jesuits? Maybe I should reconsider my possible vote. (By the way, if anyone wants to contribute to us Senator Clinton's or Senator McCain's list, we'd be happy to include it.)

Here's Obama's Catholic Kitchen Cabinet:

National Co-Chairs

Senator Bob Casey;
Representative Patrick Murphy (PA-08);
Former Congressman Tim Roemer, President of the Center for National Policy;
Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas;
Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia;
Tom Chabolla, Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union;
Victoria Reggie Kennedy, President, Common Sense About Kids and Guns;
Sr. Jamie Phelps, O.P., Professor of Theology, Xavier University;
Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, Congregation of St. Joseph.

National Steering Committee

Mary Jo Bane, Professor, Harvard Kennedy School;
Nicholas P. Cafardi, Catholic Author and Scholar, Pittsburgh, PA;
Lisa Cahill, Professor of Theology, Boston College;
M. Shawn Copeland, Associate Professor of Theology, Boston College;
Ron Cruz, Leadership Development Consultant, Burke, VA;
Sharon Daly, Social Justice Advocate, Knoxville, MD;
Richard Gaillardetz, Murray/Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies, University of Toledo;
Grant Gallicho, Associate Editor, Commonweal Magazine;
Sr. Margaret Gannon, IHM, Scranton, PA;
Don Guter, Judge Advocate General of the Navy (2000-2002); Rear Admiral, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Pittsburgh, PA;
Cathleen Kaveny, Professor of Law and Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame;
Jim Kesteloot, President and Executive Director, Chicago Lighthouse;
Vincent Miller, Associate Professor of Theology, Georgetown University.