Friday, September 15, 2006
A new study finds "that when states eliminated blue laws, church attendance declined while drinking and drug use increased significantly among young adults. Even more striking, the biggest change in bad behavior mostly occurred among those who frequently attended religious services."
Rob
Muslim outrage over Pope Benedict's quotation of a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor continues to grow. This episode seems to be an unfortunate hybrid of two recent high-profile cultural battles: first, the Danish cartoons, for obvious reasons; second, it brings to mind Harvard President Larry Summers' comments about women in science: both Summers and the pope are scholars who made provocative statements without meaning to affirm the truth of the matters asserted, apparently overlooking the fact that their positions of prominence do not give them the luxury of scholarly reflection without significant public fallout. It seems to me that Pope Benedict should personally clarify that he does not share the view embodied in the quote and explain why he offered it in the first place. Whether or not it placates the masses (and I doubt it would), it would at least make clear to reasonable Muslims that Benedict does not share equal billing with Hitler and Mussolini (as a top Turkish official seems to believe). I don't mean that we should constrain free and open discourse about religion because of many Muslims' reactions to statements about their faith, but I do think that the pope has to show particular prudence and self-restraint when speaking about non-essentials in order to ensure his continued capacity to build bridges.
Rob
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Leading pro-life Democrat Bob Casey will give a speech today at Catholic University Law School titled "Restoring America's Moral Compass: Leadership and the Common Good." The speech will be webcast live at 3:00 PM (Eastern time). You can watch it here. Not everyone is happy that he is being given this platform in an election year. (HT: Open Book)
Rob
The Institute for American Values has released Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles. From the executive summary:
Family law as a discipline has increasingly tended to commit two serious errors with regard to marriage: (a) to reduce marriage to a creature of statute, a set of legal benefits created by the law, and (b) to imagine marriage as just one of many equally valid lifestyles. This model of marriage is based on demonstrably false and therefore destructive premises. Adopting it in family law as a practice or as an academic discipline will likely make it harder for civil society in the United States to strengthen marriage as a social institution.
As scholars and as citizens, we recognize a shared moral commitment to the basic human dignity of all our fellow citizens, black or white, straight or gay, married or unmarried, religious and non-religious, as well as a moral duty to care about the well-being of children in all family forms. But sympathy and fairness cannot blind us to the importance of the basic sexual facts that give rise to marriage in virtually every known society: The vast majority of human children are created through acts of passion between men and women. Connecting children to their mother and father requires a social and legal institution called “marriage” with sufficient power, weight, and social support to influence the erotic behavior of young men and women.
We do not all agree on individual issues, from the best way to reform unilateral divorce to whether and how the law should be altered to benefit same-sex couples. We do agree that the conceptual models of marriage used by many advocates are inadequate and thus contribute to the erosion of a marriage culture in the United States. We seek to work together across the divisive issue of gay marriage to affirm the basic importance of marriage to our children and to our society. We call on all the makers of family law—legislators, judges, the family law bar, and legal scholars who create the climate in which other players operate—to develop a deeper understanding of and commitment to marriage as a social institution.
You can download a free copy here (reg. req'd). Several MoJers (including me) are among the signatories. Hopefully the statement will spark meaningful and productive conversation.
Rob
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The video excerpt of Matt Lauer's interview with President Bush (posted by Michael P. below) is really strange. The President's position, as far as I can tell, is that whatever our interrogators have done in secret prisons to extract information is, seemingly by definition: 1) legal; 2) not torture; and 3) necessary to protect the American people. I'm a bit suspicious that the President's firm conviction in assertion #3 is the driving force of his confidence in assertions #1 and #2. I share Andrew Sullivan's reaction to the interview:
It seems indisuptable to me that a) Bush has authorized "water-boarding"; b) he told his lawyers to come up with a formulation declaring this was legal (they did, finding Serbian precedents); c) his public strategy is to use euphemisms and make the ludicrous argument that he cannot discuss "specifics" because it could tip off the enemy. Does he really think that al Qaeda doesn't know KSM was waterboarded? It was in the New York Times, confirmed by his own aides. Lauer made a good start. Now we need a journalist to call the president on this guff and get him to answer simply whether he believes "water-boarding" is torture or not. A simple question in the abstract. And very simple for a Christian to answer.
For what it's worth, here is my own attempt to formulate a Christian perspective on torture.
Rob
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
I'm always interested in how Christians engage the culture authentically, not just through law and politics, but through media and entertainment. One insightful example occurred this past weekend, when Veggie Tales (a Christian video series created by my brother) premiered as an anchor of NBC's Saturday morning lineup. Things got interesting, though, when NBC threatened to pull the show unless Bob and Larry's closing line ("God made you special and loves you very much.") was edited out. Ultimately the line came out, the show aired, and a major brouhaha broke out in Veggie Nation. Was this akin to Paul respecting a foreign culture or Shadrach bowing to an idol? One interesting side-note: NBC's demand to remove the line came shortly after the network announced that it would air Madonna's mock crucifixion as part of a concert special. As one executive commented, the network reviewed the scene and did not find it "inappropriate." Telling kids that God loves them is, apparently, less appropriate.
Rob
UPDATE: Who knew that Veggie Tales would strike a chord in the legal academy? Duquesne law prof Alison Sulentic offers her take:
I do not think that Veggie Tales is in danger of losing its Christian identity by removing the final line of the show. The real genius of Veggie Tales its ability to engage children in moral reflection in a way that captures their imagination. Some children do not participate in organized religion, but nonetheless respond to Veggie Tales because of its humor, good sense and ability to teach basic moral lessons in terms that kids understand. I think this is a valuable contribution to civic discourse and to children's moral and religious education, even if the closing line is left out. In fact, one might argue that by removing the last line, the show becomes accessible to kids whose parents might otherwise censor it as being too "religious." If Veggie Tales is only watched by kids whose parents are comfortable with religious language, then one might argue that the show is only preaching to the choir. So, in response to Rob's question--no, I don't think this is an example of bowing down to cultural idols. God doesn't love us any less just because Bob the Tomato doesn't mention it at the end of the show. Likewise, the basic message of Veggie Tales doesn't change simply because Bob doesn't mention God in the last line of the show. I, for one, want the message of Veggie Tales to get through to kids in whatever medium is accessible to them. It is not at all surprising that Veggie Tales adopts one of Jesus' favorite teaching methods--the use of a parable or a story to illustrate God's love. Veggie Tales uses stories to teach kids exactly the kind of moral reasoning and ethical responsibility that should be included in any basic curriculum for religious education. (As a law professor, I will also add that it provides a foundation for understanding natural law, as well.) As far as I can tell, Veggie Tales doesn't claim to be the final word on religious and/or moral education. But it certainly gives very young kids a way to think about these ideas that may lead them to deeper and more informed reflection in later years. In my opinion, that's a contribution that is so valuable that it should be encouraged, even if the tag line is deleted.
Tom accuses the Bush administration of lacking a Niebuhrian balance between confidence and self-criticism; we need not look very far for evidence to bolster that characterization -- I'd suggest just about any public statement by Vice President Cheney on Iraq or the war on terror (which have now been awkwardly morphed into a single subject by the administration). A couple of days ago, for example, he stated that the lack of WMD would not have affected the decision to invade Iraq: "If we had to do [it] over again, we would do exactly the same thing." A similarly jarring lack of self-criticism was reflected in President Bush's infamous inability to cite a single mistake he made post-9/11.
Rob
UPDATE: Randy Heinig forwards this link to an insightful exchange between Reinhold Niebuhr and his brother Richard regarding just war. Randy also wonders "about the political viability of the public expression of humility on the part of political leaders." Would humility be "a trait that the media (and culture) would understand? Would it be analyzed solely as weakness? Not that these points excuse some of the rhetoric, but I wonder if, even if offered, it would be something that the media could report in a comprehensible manner."
If you haven't read Peggy Noonan's column today, you should.
Rob
Monday, September 11, 2006
The current issue of Dollars & Sense has a profile of "solidarity economics."
Rob
Baylor's Religion Study has been released, providing a snapshot of Americans' religious beliefs. The researchers state:
Past survey research has tended to consistently depict Americans as a highly religious people, while some of these same surveys have shown that the percentage of Americans indicating no particular religious affiliation has doubled over the last two decades. Our survey reconciles any apparent contradiction. It turns out that Americans remain connected to congregations to an extent far greater than they associate with denominations or other religious labels. Also, a fair number of those who claimed 'no religion' in our sample were actually active, engaged affiliates of evangelical congregations who were 'screened out' by previous surveys that concentrated on denominational affiliation.
Rob
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
