In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke states that church and state should be separate but the church's sphere of influence should be limited, extending only to the other worldy salvation of its members souls. He writes: "The end of a religious society ... is the public worship of God and, by means thereof, the acquisition of eternal life. ... Nothing ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of civil and worldly goods." This morning, while in the car, I caught a couple of minutes of Laura Ingraham's radio program. If I heard her correctly, she took a very Lockean position, criticizing the Catholic bishops and some evangelical pastors for getting involved in the immigration debate suggesting that they ought to stick to "religious" matters. I've criticized those on the left who take the separationist line when it is convenient to their cause but welcome the church's input when beneficial to their cause and so I apply my criticism equally across the political spectrum since I highly doubt the Ingraham is a consistent secularist.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Laura Ingraham and John Locke on Religion in the Public Sphere
The Obama's and the Nation's Nutrition
I am pleased to see that the First Lady is working with the National Restaurant Association to encourage "restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children's meals that include healthy offerings." But, it seems to me that her efforts merely chip around the edges of our nation's vast nutrition and health problems. Would her efforts be better spent targeting her husband and his administration for continuing the federal government's cozy relationship with and subsidy of major agribusiness? If Michael Poulan and the folks who produced Food, Inc. are correct, the federal government and how it subsidizes agriculature has a large role to play in our obese society, in environmentally unsound farming practices, and in putting local farmers out of business.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Help Needed!
My feeble brain is tired as we prepare to close out the year, and I need your help with two issues from the lame duck Congress.
First, Congress recently extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone including the highest earning Americans on the grounds that many of these "wealthy" Americans are small business owners who will react to higher taxes by not hiring and expanding their businesses. But, wouldn't higher taxes likely have the opposite effect on small businesses? I am not advocating higher taxes for anyone, but I am puzzled by this rationale. With higher taxes the small business person has two options - give more of their earnings to the government or invest in the small business by hiring and expanding. The third possibility - taking that money home is not an option with higher taxes. Am I wrong in my analysis?
Second, the estate tax. Doesn't the existence of an estate tax provide incentive to wealthy people to dispose of their assets in their life times? And, might this be a good thing? Again, I am not arguing for an estate tax, but I would like to hear arguments about why it is a bad idea?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Dream Act would align immigration policy with U.S. legal culture
In this essay, which appears in the Dec. 19 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, I argue for passage of the Dream Act.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Should we be Monarchists?
In a provocative essay posted at the Front Porch Republic, John Medaille proclaims himself a monarchist. He states:
I am a monarchist because I am a democrat. That is, I believe that the will of the people, their traditions and customs, their concern for their families, their communities, and for the future should determine the shape of any political order. And monarchy is the highest form of this democracy.
Does he have a valid point? Comments are open.
Monday, November 29, 2010
"Who Needs Marriage? Kids Do"
Attorney and commentator Jennifer Braceras has an op-ed in today's Boston Herald responding to Time Magizine's recent cover story entitled "Who Needs Marriage" and a recent Pew Study on the state of marriage and out of wedlock births in the United States. If she is correct in her assessment, as I think she is, what can be done about this crisis and what role can - should - law play?
"Secular Winds"
Perry Dane has a post on the Law, Religion, and Ethics that will be of interest to our readers.
Dane concludes:
This is a legal and political — and not only a religious — blog, so there should be (I guess) a legal and political take-away. If there is, it might go something like this, however trite: The relation of religion and the secular state, and of religion and law, must navigate between two dangers. One is that religion will be co-opted, which is to say that it will become “secularized,” open to being oppressed and itself oppressive. The other danger is that religion will be entirely banished from the public realm, leaving only “howling clouds of ash.”
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Immigration and Violence
The CQ Press recently published its annual list of of most dangerous and least dangerous cities in the United States. With the uproar over the supposed link between immigration and violence, especially on our southern border, one would expect that the most violent cities in the U.S. would be on the border and/or cities with high foreign born popolutions. But, some of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. have small foreign born populations, incuding Detroit (4.8% foreign born), Baltimore (4.6%), Memphis (12.6%), D.C. 12.6%), Atlanta (8.7%). And, some of the least dangerous cities have high foreign born populations, including El Paso, Texas (26.1%) and San Diego, Ca. (25.7%). According to CQ Press, the border cities of Brownsville, El Paso, McAllen, Texas are safer than Columbia, Missouri, Lawrence, Kansas and Lincoln, Nebraska.
HT: Mark Shea
cross posted on ImmgrationProf Blog
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"In Defense of Culture" by Patrick Deneen
If you haven't seen this essay/lecture by Prof. Deneen on Front Porch Republic, it is worth the read. Here is one paragraph:
The political philosophy as a whole that has effected this destruction of culture is the dominant school of thought – and life – of the modern period, namely liberalism. Liberalism, in its many forms – whether classical or progressive, whether purportedly on the Right or the Left – shares one basic feature in common, namely a hostility to cultural forms that are a pre-modern inheritance. Whether in the form of classical liberalism that forefronts individualism, or in the form of progressive liberalism that aspires to collectivism, both forms of liberalism seek to effect their ends by the same means – namely, the displacement of culture. Indeed, I would go farther to argue that the two have combined in a pincer movement, alternating in their claims toward the common end of detaching people from traditional forms and ways of life in favor of various visions of liberation.
Catholic Legal Theory and the Curious Case of California and Texas
This article in Forbes highlights the declining fortunes of the people of California and the rising fortunes of the people of Texas. Both states are far from perfect, but I wonder, from the perspective of a Catholic concerned about social and economic justice, which state does a better job? Thoughts?
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
