I just posted (under my name in the righthand sidebar; here) a revised version of the paper I delivered last month at the Villanova conference devoted to the legacy of John Courtney Murray. I won't repeat all of the comments posted on MOJ in the wake of the conference about what a fine day it was, but I will say that the paper benefitted tremendously from the contributions of the participants.
Friday, October 7, 2005
John Courtney Murray and the Abortion Debate
Salvation Army and Religious Hiring
Rick yesterday referenced the New York federal court decision ruling that the Salvation Army may hire and fire employees according to their religious beliefs. The court also ruled that the discrimination alleged against the Salvation Army could not be attributed to the government agencies that contract with the Salvation Army to provide social services.
There is also an Establishment Clause issue being litigated in the case. The plaintiff employees in the case also included claims against the NYC Administration for Children's Services, alleging that the relationship between the agency and the Salvation Army violates the Establishment Clause. (90% of the clients served by the Salvation Army are referred by government agencies and it gets substantial funding from them.) The judge refused to dismiss the claim, finding a reasonable inference that governments funds were used to enforce compliance with the Salvation Army's reorganization plan and that it may have used governemnts funds to support indoctrination of clients.
The decision is here.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Another question re the Palmer piece
Amy raises some excellent questions in her post. I want to raise a question about a different part of Palmer's piece. In the last paragraph, he says:
"My second negative rule is that I never give any indication of my own religious views. To do so would be distracting and overreaching, and would cause concern for even those students who hold the same beliefs as I....My beliefs will inevitably shape my classroom conduct, so why hide them?...My goal as a law teacher is to convey the material in any given course, including policy, philosophy, black-letter rules, background facts, and all else that is reasonably relevent. Expressing my beliefs would only get in the way of that goal."
I'm curious to hear people's reaction to this. I understand the concern about overreaching. It is obviously important for students to understand that they are not required to approve or agree with a professor's religious beliefs.
On the other hand, my religious views are not divorced from who I am and, as Palmer observes, one's religious views inevitably shape what one says and does in the classroom as it affects all aspects of one's life. In my own case, my students know I am Catholic - some of them see me at mass on campus and I wear a crucifix around my neck.
Given that reality, is it possible to, for example, conduct a seminar that raises religious issues as part of the discussion without the discussion in some way revealing the professor's religious views? And, whether it is or is not possible, is it really so clear that revelation of the professor's views always gets in the way of the goal of the classroom? Might it not, at least in a seminar context, make it easier for students to evaluate what a professor if saying and doing if they understand the context out of which the professor is operating. (Again, the atmosphere has to be such that the student does not feel compelled to mouth agreement with the professor's views....but that is also something I think is important in all cases, not just in matters of religion.)
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Recent Survey on Views of American Catholics
According to a survey conducted by National Catholic Reporter shortly after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the most important issues to American Catholics are helping the poor and belief in the resurrection (84%). Dean Hoge, one of the resarchers who conducted the study observed that the findings "are similar to the findings of earlier studies except that in the past the sacraments were usually in first place ahead of helping the poor...We consider it noteworthy that helping the poor is held in such central importance by American Catholics." In contrast, Hage observes that most American Catholics appear to view teachings on, e.g., celibacy and issues such as death penalty, abortion and same-sex marriage as "more optional than essential." The Reuters report of the survey is here. (The report notes that the survey is at ncronline.org, but I couldn't easily locate it.)
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Global Priorities
The recently released U.N. Conference on Trade and Development Report is worthy of note. (See Zenit's coverage of the report here.) While it is true that progress has been made (e.g., life expectancy in developing countries has increased by two years), it remains that the level of poverty and number of deaths due to lack of basic necessities is high.
As most people know the lack of access to clean water is a major problem in developing areas. The cost to provide 2.6 billion people with access to clean water sounds large - $7 billion. By contrast, however, $7 billion is less than Europeans spend on perfume and less than Americans spend on elective corrective surgery.
The report calls providing aid to developing countries a "moral imperitive," observing that "One-fifth of humanity live in countries where many people think nothing of spending $2 a day on a cappuccino. Another fifth of humanity survive on less than $1 a day and live in countries where children die for want of a simple anti-mosquito net."
The contrasts are pretty sobering.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Searching for God's Truth
I second (or, more accurately, fourth or fifth) the positive comments made by my fellow MOJ'ers about Friday's conference at Villanova on the legacy of John Courtney Murray. I also note my admiration and astonishment that Fr. Araujo has already linked in his post a revised version of his paper, reflecting comments he received at the conference. (My own paper, John Courtney Murray and the Abortion Debate, won't be posted for at least a week.)
Fr. Araujo's observation about the group "searching for God's truth" is, I think, both an accurate and an important observation, with an emphasis both on "searching" and on "God's trurh." Perhaps it is seeing ourselves as searchers that helps us maintain such a collegial atmosphere; we may (indeed, do) differ in some of the conclusions we reach on particular issues, but we are engaged in a common enterprise and recognize that we have much to learn from each other. And that we seek God's truth and not our own truths perhaps helps minimize the ego issues that often hinder academic discussions.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
JFK to the Houston Ministerial Association
Since Rob referenced it in his last post, I thought it worth posting the link to Kennedy's 1960 address to the Houston Ministerial Association, which I recently had cause to re-read.
Although I can't say how either Roberts or Specter interpreted Kennedy's statement, I think Kennedy intended to make clear that his presidential decisions on "public matters" would be based on his own belief as to what was in the national interest. The part of the speech from which the language quoted by Specter comes says:
"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.
"Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."
Kennedy went on to add that "if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Same-Sex Marriage in California
The New York Times reports today that the California legislature yesterday passed a bill amending the state's family code to define marriage as bewteen "two persons" rather than as between a man and a woman. Governor Schwarzenegger has not publicly taken a position on the act, but one spokesperson has indicated that he the matter as one that should be settled by the courts, rather then the legislature. The legislative action comes despite the overwhelming vote of Californias voters in 2000 in favor of Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
Judge's Recusal from Abortion Cases
I received the following response from Professor Gerry Whyte of Trinity College Dublin School of Law to my post regarding judges opting out of abortion cases:
"Further to your recent MOJ posting about judges recusing themselves from abortion cases involving minors, it strikes me that the rules of natural justice, and in particular the proscription against acting in one's own case, might be relevant to some (though perhaps not all) of these cases. If, as a result of extra-judicial activity, a judge acquires a reputation for being partisan on an issue, whenever that issue comes before her, she is surely obliged to recuse herself. That is certainly the legal position here in Ireland where in Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd. v. Ireland [1995] Irish Law Reports Monthly 408, our Supreme Court held that a trial judge should have recused herself from a case involving abortion policy where, through her actions as Chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women, she had previously indicated support for some liberalisation of our abortion laws. According to the Supreme Court, there was a perceived risk that one of the parties to the case could reasonably consider that the chance of a fair and independent hearing did not exist because of the trial judge's known views. There was never any suggestion, however, that the trial judge should resign from office. The focus here is on the rights of the litigants, rather than on the conscience of the trial judge, so recusal from one case is sufficient to resolve this issue."
Sunday, September 4, 2005
Judges Opting Out of Abortion Cases
Today's New York Times contained an article reporting that some judges in states that require parental permission for abortion with an option to seek judicial permission not to tell a parent have begun to recuse themselves from such cases based on their belief that taking innocent life is immoral. The article cites a number of criticism of the decision and I'd be grateful to hear people's views on the question.
On the one hand, I think the analogy made in the article to phramacists' refusal to dispense emergency contraception drugs is misplaced. In my view, there is a difference between a pharmacist's refusal and that of a judge, who takes an oath to uphold the law.
On the other hand, although I don't disagree that "[u]nwillingness to follow the law is not a legitimate ground for recusal," if what the judge is saying is: "I do not believe I could be impartial here because of my moral views of the issue," then is recusal really inappropriate? If the judge is raising question about his ability to be impartial, is it the case, as Prof. Koniak is quoted as saying, that the judge's only choice is to enforce the law or resign from the bench? Some views from the legal ethicists out there would be welcome.
The article expresses the concern that this action could "spread across the nation and to subjects like the death penalty, medical marijuana, flag burning and even divorce." That is a good reminder that whatever views we form on this question ought to be views based on broader questions of separation of powers and not based on solely on the issue of abortion.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
