Michael P. brings us news of an asylum case out of the UK, which grants asylum to homosexuals based on their membership in a particular social group. Under the law, a person can be granted asylum if they are threatened with persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." (Michael P., forgive me in advance for my lack of technical nuance here, but the differences between asylum and nonrefoulment aren't relevant to this discussion).
Setting aside the important questions of a) whether the amorphous category of "particular social group" ought to be extended to include practicing homosexuals and b) in what circumstances "prosecution" under a country's law constitutes "persecution," Lord Hope's opinion contains some troubling reasoning.
First, in paragrah 2, he states: "fanned by misguided but vigorous religious doctrine, the situation has changed dramatically. The ultra-conservative interpretation of Islamic law that prevails in Iran is one example. The rampant homophobic teaching that right-wing evangelical Christian churches indulge in throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa is another."
What gives this court the authority to determine whether a particular religious interpertation is misguided? And, by what criteria is this secular court declaring that a particular interpretation of Islam or a particular group of Christians is misguided in their religious doctrine? Rather than just sticking to the secular law of England, this court has gratuitiously opined on theological matters. And, I suspect that this sort of foray, concluding that the religious doctrine of "ultra-conservative" Muslims and "right-wing evangelical Christians" is "misguided" has application far beyond this aslylum case. Any thoughts?
Second, in Paragraph 11 (highlighted by Michael P.), Lord Hope states: "The group is defined by the immutable characteristic of its members’ sexual orientation or sexuality. This is a characteristic that may be revealed, to a greater or lesser degree, by the way the members of this group behave. In that sense, because it manifests itself in behaviour, it is less immediately visible than a person’s race. But, unlike a person’s religion or political opinion, it is incapable of being changed. To pretend that it does not exist, or that the behaviour by which it manifests itself can be suppressed, is to deny the members of this group their fundamental right to be what they are....."
Is Lord Hope suggesting that acting on one's sexual impulse is more important than the allegiance we owe to God as we understand God? Religions can be changed, but sexual orientations (and the corresponding behavior) can't he says. I know people who have changed their sexual orientation and I also know people - both heterosexuals and homosexuals - who are celibate, but I'll readily admit that in our culture I have known many more people who have changed their religion than have changed their sexual orientation or who have decided to remain celibate. But that seems largely beside the point. Is this Court really implying that "religion" is less fundamental to a person's identity than the ability to act on one's sexual orientation simply because it can be changed? Or, am I reading too much into this? If I am reading this accurately, what are the implications of this sort of reasoning outside the asylum context?
Ratzinger argued in the week before he became Pope that "[w]e are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires." You dismiss this by concluding that his language is "deeply confused" and he is merely engaging in "attractive polemical posturing," but you have yet to tell us if and on what grounds you disagree with Ratzinger's assertion.
This Independence Day post is, in a way, a continuation of my conversation with Michael P. on "relativism" and "relativisms."
What are we celebrating today? Authentic freedom or illusory freedom? Freedom for or freedom from? Freedom to do what we ought or freedom to do what we want no matter how base? If rights are not "inalienable," but can be alienated at the whim of a majority, whether it be a majority of the whole or a majority of the Committee of Nine (SCOTUS), aren't we really celebrating a false liberty? In Centesimus Annus, 44, Pope John Paul II said:
If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.
I ain't as learnt as Michael P., and I don't got Leslie Green's academic credentials (but if it's a credential war, I suspect that Ratzinger wins), but this good 'ole boy from flyover country can spot confusion a mile away, and it ain't coming from Ratzinger but from Michael P. and L. Green.
Michael P. and Leslie G. want to teach the world that in technical philosophical language there are different relativisms and that discussions about relativism "outside of technical philosophical literature [read me, Ratzinger, and others] are deeply confused, and, therefore, confusing." Michael P. goes on to dismiss Ratzinger by suggesting that he is merely engaging in "attractive polemical posturing" rather than engaging in serious thought.
Ratzinger argued in the week before he became Pope that "[w]e are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires." Green and Perry dismiss Ratzinger because he isn't engaged in technical philosophic speak. But, Green inadvertently affirms the future Pope's thesis when he argues that we do have minimum moral standards and that they are determined by the ever changing whims the majority. To this country bumpkin, that sure sounds like relativism. But, what do I know?
And, neither Perry nor Green address the substance of Ratzinger's argument. Who is causing confusion? I don't think it is the Pope!
Thank you Michael P. for pointing us to Leslie Green's disagreement with Pope Benedict's assertion that we are in danger of "a dictatorship of relativism." My quick read of Green seems to confirm Benedict's thesis. Is it fair to say that Green disagrees with Benedict for two reasons? One, there is danger from non-relativist countries, particularly Muslim countries. And, two, the west isn't relatavist because it imposes democratically arrived at moral norms.
Green's world seems to center on will to power. In some nations God's will as interpreted by the powerful shape the moral norms of the country. Aware of this, Benedict asks, does reason have a place alongside faith. In other nation's (the West), Green asserts that the will of a majority [or, in the case of the U.S., often the majority of the Committee of Nine] establish the moral norms. Does reason supply any criteria? Can the majority ever reach an immoral conclusion? If not, whover has the power to create or manipulate a majority of the populace (or a majority of the Committee of Nine), sets the moral standard. That sounds pretty relativistic to me. What am I missing Michael P.?
Several news sources are reporting that a Massachusetts school board has adopted a policy allowing students at all grade levels to obtain condoms from the school nurse and all without parental notification. Either someone is having a lot of fun pulling our legs or we are much farther down the rabbit hole than I imagined.
With Susan Stabile's permission, I cross-post her Creo en Dios! reflection on the memorial of St. Thomas More:
Today the Catholic Church celebrates the memorial of St. Thomas More, who, among other patronages, is the patron saint of lawyers. More was beheaded in 1535 for refusing to sign an oath declaring the king to be the head of the Church in England.
More was a deeply prayerful person and in his writings he encourages others to take time in quiet prayer and meditation. Here is a prayer he wrote while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. It contains some petitions we might all ask our God to grant to us:
Give me the grace, Good Lord To set the world at naught. To set the mind firmly on You and not to hang upon the words of men’s mouths. To be content to be solitary. Not to long for worldly pleasures. Little by little utterly to cast off the world and rid my mind of all its business. Not to long to hear of earthly things, but that the hearing of worldly fancies may be displeasing to me. Gladly to be thinking of God, piteously to call for His help. To lean into the comfort of God. Busily to labor to love Him. To know my own vileness and wretchedness. To humble myself under the mighty hand of God. To bewail my sins and, for the purging of them, patiently to suffer adversity. Gladly to bear my purgatory here. To be joyful in tribulations. To walk the narrow way that leads to life. To have the last thing in remembrance. To have ever before my eyes my death that is ever at hand. To make death no stranger to me. To foresee and consider the everlasting fire of Hell. To pray for pardon before the judge comes. To have continually in mind the passion that Christ suffered for me. For His benefits unceasingly to give Him thanks. To buy the time again that I have lost. To abstain from vain conversations. To shun foolish mirth and gladness. To cut off unnecessary recreations. Of worldly substance, friends, liberty, life and all, to set the loss at naught, for the winning of Christ. To think my worst enemies my best friends, for the brethren of Joseph could never have done him so much good with their love and favor as they did him with their malice and hatred. These minds are more to be desired of every man than all the treasures of all the princes and kings, Christian and heathen, were it gathered and laid together all in one heap. Amen
Some time ago my sister, Angela, sent me her essay "At Any Cost: Heroic Measures to Save Lives." Although written after the Haiti earthquate and well before Peter Singer's recent op-ed titled "Should This Be the Last Generation?," I think it offers a powerful response to his essay.
All work stops.A small tapping sound is heard beneath the rubble; signs of life.Everyone on the rescue team increases their determination and will go to any length to find the survivor.I have watched the tremendous humanitarian efforts of not only trained professional rescuers, but film crews, family members, and every day individuals as well.They are all trying to save as many lives as possible following the devastating earthquake in Haiti.The images on television are heartbreaking; children, already born into difficult circumstances, now facing unimaginable hardships, many without parents, shelter, and even limbs.But they are alive and the world rejoices.
I cannot help but wonder, how many more are left under the rubble still alive?They may be buried so deep, that any signs of life cannot be heard.Their movements and sounds go unnoticed.There is no doubt; every rescuer present would risk their very lives to save them, if they could only hear their cries.No matter how difficult the circumstances the children and other survivors will face, everyone agrees, life is worth saving.
In spite of the magnitude of the disaster, I cannot help but be filled with hope for our world.Nations are at war, global recession is wreaking havoc, and crime is on the rise, while job opportunities are falling.Still, the global community has heard the cry for help and responded to the humanitarian call.The world has sent a message from Haiti as a testament to life itself.Everyone has joined forces around one of the poorest nations in the world to literally lift it from the rubble and preserve life.
If the world will rally for Haiti, will it not also finally join forces and rally on behalf of all the unborn whose lives are in danger?These children are moving, tapping, living.Although we cannot hear their cries, we know they are there.With today’s technology, we do not have to rely on microphones buried deep within the Earth to detect life, we can see their humanity.Although not everyone will agree that life begins at conception, there is clearly life forming activity from the very start.The life forming is human.If we followed the example of rescue workers in Haiti, we would proceed on the assumption that what we are detecting is alive. Rescuers are not absolutely certain that they will find someone breathing when they finally make their way through the rubble.If there is even the slightest chance that someone is left alive, they give their absolute effort.Should we not proceed as well, erring on the side of caution, not waiting until everyone is convinced that a human embryo is human life?If there were even the slightest chance that a life could be spared, wouldn’t all of us want to give our absolute effort?
Precious time is passing and lives are being lost.It is time to put political positions aside, join forces, and as a global community, collectively work to preserve life.Just like many of the children we have seen on the news laying in parks next to the ruins, these unborn children may be “unwanted,” they could be born into “devastating” circumstances, many could even be deformed or facing other unimaginable health issues.They have a chance at life though.The world has spoken in Haiti.Life, no matter how devastating the circumstances, is worth saving.What of these unborn lives?Will we not go to heroic measures to save them?Their tapping will go on long after the Earth finally settles in Haiti.Let’s not let their sounds go unheard.
