...its the night before Thanksgiving and I just returned from a beautiful inter-faith service, an annual event for Thanksgiving Eve here in Port Washington, N.Y. By tradition the sermon is given by the newest rabbi, priest or minister in town. Tonight, the speaker was a rabbi who gave a truly inspiring talk....one of those times when you really could hear a pin drop, so rapt was the attention with which the entire congregation listened to him.
One of the points he stressed is one dear to my heart - the importance of having a sense of gratitude rather than one of desert or entitlement. Our culture, with its excessive emphasis on individualism, does much to promote a sense of entitlement. ("I worked hard, I did it on my own and by golly I deserve the rewards I reap from my efforts. I earned them.") Yet, the reality is that all we are and all we have are gifts from our loving God, and those gifts are meant to be shared and used for the benefit of the communal whole. If that recognition filled our being, imagine how different our world would be. It alone would change tremendously how we view our stewardship of the earth, how we view our obligation toward the poor and marginalized, how we regard life itself. I think if I could make only one change in the world that might be the one I'd make - to replace people's view of the things of this world as a matter of entitlement with a view of them as gift; to replace an attitude of desert with one of gratitude.
Happy Thanksgiving to all (and to all a good night).
Susan
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Rick is right to be troubled by the unwillingness of the pro-abortion lobby to recognize the freedom of conscience and religious values that justify allowing e.g., a Catholic hospital to refuse to provide or pay for abortions without being penalized. The rhetoric of NARAL is that abortion is an important component of comprehensive reproductive health care. The more that rhetoric is permitted to prevail (think: Kerry's promise to make abortion part of mainstream health care), the less likely it is that the law will protect the freedom of those who oppose abortion on moral grounds to refuse to provide or pay for them.
I have already expressed some concern about this issue in my forthcoming Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy piece on the application of mandatory contraception coverage statutes to religious employers (the link to which is on the right side of this page under Papers). The New York Times article to which Rick refers suggests reason to be concerned about increasing infringement on religious freedom.
Susan
Friday, November 19, 2004
Further to Rick's critique of Peter Beinart's New Republic piece, I agree with the notion that Christians are not required to translate their claims into a common political language. However I would add something to Rick's response. The assumption behind those who take Beinart's position seems to be that while religious arguments are not grounded in "reason and evidence," i.e., those things accessible to others not sharing one's religion, that all other bases of arguments are somehow commonly accessible. That is patently not the case. There are plenty of arguments made (by those on both sides of the political spectrum) that, although not religious in tone, are no more accessible to others than religious arguments, that are little more than "I just believe x." Indeed, Beinart's piece suggests a good example - nondebatable identity claims - which are not limited to religious folk. Yet I've rarely, if ever, heard any criticism of nonaccessibility aimed at any arguments other than religious ones.
Susan
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who oversees the USCCB Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, issued a statement today indicating that the Conference has agreed to take up the matter of Church teaching on the proper disposition for politicians and others to receive communion. I confess to not being overwhelmingly sympathetic to his complaint about criticisms of the bishops' behavior during the presidential campaign. To say that "bishops can come to different prudential and pastoral judgments about how to apply our teaching to public policy," is not to say that every public statement made by the various bishops during the campaign is defensible and one can see how the media and the public could have legitimate concern about some of the statements that were made.
Susan
Monday, November 8, 2004
Not suprisingly, several responses to Professor Outka's "nothing is lost" argument focus on the first prong, the notion that the innocent person would die anyway. While that is the more interesting side of the question, it is worth observing that the second prong is hardly unassailable either. The second part of the "nothing is lost" argument is that other innocent life will be saved."
I'm not an expert on the state of stem-cell research, but my understanding from what I have read is that the best we can say is that further stem-cell research offers the potential to save or improve lives. Many of the values of the research discussed - faciliating drug testing, aiding in treatment in Parkinsons, arthritis and burns - while very beneficial, do not rise to the level of saving an innocent life and many of the benefits discussed are, as of now, possibilities only.
Even if one is willing to accept the nothing is lost argument at its tightest - an innocent life lost for an innocent life saved - do we really want to stretch the argument to say that the "benefit" side of the equation is satisfied by something that may (or may not) improve (rather than save) the lives of some in the future.
Susan
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Further to Mark's post about the level of the discussion on Catholics and voting, MOJ readers might be interested in the results of a recently released Pew report. Contrary to fears that had been expressed by many that the internet would hurt democratic deliberation, the report concludes that the Internet has contributed to a wider awareness among those who use it.
"At a time when political deliberation seems extremely partisan and when people may be tempted to ignore arguments at odds with their views, internet users are not insulating themselves in information echo chambers. Instead, they are exposed to more political arguments than non-users. While all people like to see arguments that support their beliefs, internet users are not limiting their information exposure to views that buttress their opinions. Instead, wired Americans are more aware than non-internet users of all kinds of arguments, even those that challenge their preferred candidates and issue positions."
Susan
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Cathy Kaveny observed in her last post that Greg's rhetoric is not productive of discussion and suggests he does little more than tell her that Kerry is evil. I disagree.
I doubt that Greg's postings over the last two weeks will sway my vote on Tuesday. As I have told him in off-MOJ e-mail, I think four more years of Bush is too disasterous on too many grounds to contemplate. Thus, my only option is to vote for Kerry or not vote for President. I suspect I will be one of the hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-Kerry voters.
But I take an important part of what Greg is trying to do here is to make those who are going to take that option think a little about the consequences of what they are doing. Both Greg and William McGurn (in his powerful Casey lecture posted a couple of days ago) fairly suggest that the silence of Catholics who can be counted on to vote Democrat no matter what has helped contribute to a Democratic party that has completely silenced any pro-life sentiment. Perhaps it is not enough for those who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds to silently hold their noses and vote for Kerry. Doesn't some attempt have to be made by those who believe abortion is wrong, but who otherwise prefer the Democratic agenda to the Republican one, to demand that some anti-abortion sentiment be expressed within the Democratic party? (Or, do we just all bail and join Mark's Seamless Garment party).
Susan
