Alas, the downside of letting a bunch of law profs operate a blog, as MoJ readers have invariably realized, is its tendency to ebb and flow with the rhythms of the law school calendar, and August represents the last gasp of the summer break. In that regard, I've just returned from an extended visit to the heartland, with infrequent internet access. But I have spent some time with books, and one in particular deserves a mention. I haven't always embraced everything George Weigel has written, but his Letters to a Young Catholic is well worth reading. He offers glimpses into various physical landmarks of the Catholic faith, using them to reflect on broader aspects of the Catholic self-conception and worldview.
Weigel has an uncanny ability to capture the essence of complex ideas in accessible language, as reflected in his discussion of G.K. Chesteron's espousal of orthodoxy as a bulwark against oppression. Weigel brings Chesteron's thought forward into the debate over the biotech revolution, noting that for today's scientist revolutionaries,
Humankind . . . is infinitely plastic; remanufacturable, if you will. And that's what they intend to do -- remanufacture the human condition by manufacturing human beings.
Anyone who imagines that that can be done without massive coercion hasn't read Huxley. The brave new world . . . is a world of overwhelming coercion in the name of the highest ideals. The sacramental imagination is a barrier against the brave new world because it teaches us that the givens in this world have meaning -- including the final givenness, which is death. (96-97)
I was reminded of this passage when I heard news reports of the Vatican's purportedly anti-feminist statement on women. Extracting meaning from "the givens" was the task undertaken by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its letter on The Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World. Tackling an uncommonly volatile topic, the CDF concludes that "[t]he defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one's humanity, whether male or female." The challenge, of course, is to identify the contours of authentic human realization, which requires distinguishing gender differences embodied in creation from differences constructed by society. (You can read a critical religious take on the CDF's letter here.)
In any event, Weigel's highly personal glimpse into what it means to be Catholic is a refreshing read for those accustomed to seeing the Church defined primarily by its rejection of prevailing cultural norms; he offers an affirmative articulation of the faith through an array of its real-world embodiments.
Rob
Friday, August 6, 2004
The magazine Christianity Today reports that a British pastor is under police investigation for criticizing Islam. Here's an excerpt from a British news report:
POLICE today launched an investigation into comments by a Norwich religious leader branding Islam "an evil religion".
The Rev Dr Alan Clifford, pastor of Norwich Reformed Church, yesterday told the Evening News he backed the views of BNP leader Nick Griffin, who was shown in a TV documentary telling party members Islam was a "vicious, wicked faith."
His comments sparked outrage among fellow religious leaders and anti-racist groups.
The Evening News was today contacted by the Race Crime Unit of Norfolk police to provide further information about Dr Clifford's comments, after saying they were concerned his remarks could damage "community cohesiveness".
Abraham Eshetu, diversity officer at Norfolk police, said: "We will be investigating the comments made by Mr Clifford."
In addition to the obvious implications this has for religious liberty and freedom of speech, there are serious concerns raised for the social viability of mediating structures (and subsidiarity more generally) when the trump of state power is brought to bear on groups that are perceived to threaten "community cohesiveness."
Rob
Thursday, July 29, 2004
I am entirely unqualified to speak on corporate law issues, but since Rick threw out the invitation (below), I'll chime in on a broader point. I'm not sure whether corporations should be able to sue for discrimination, but I'd be very hesitant to categorically characterize corporations as "pieces of paper sitting in a secretary of state's office" (as Larry Ribstein does) for purposes of framing their legal standing.
Richard John Neuhaus and Peter Berger famously characterized the dilemma of modern life as emanating from the interplay between the public sphere -- where alienating "megastructures" hold sway -- and the private sphere -- where meaning, fulfillment, and personal identity are to be realized. According to Neuhaus and Berger, this public/private split:
poses a double crisis. It is a crisis for the individual who must carry on a balancing act between the demands of the two spheres. It is a political crisis because the megastructures (notably the state) come to be devoid of personal meaning and are therefore viewed as unreal or even malignant. Not everyone experiences the crisis in the same way. Many who handle it more successfully than most have access to institutions that mediate between the two spheres. Such institutions have a private face, giving private life a measure of stability, and they have a public face, transferring meaning and value to the megastructures. Thus, mediating structures alleviate each facet of the double crisis of modern society. Their strategic position derives from their reducing both the anomic precariousness of individual existence in isolation from society and the threat of alienation to the public order. [To Empower People at 215]
Corporations may function as mediating structures. Smaller, non-profit corporations are especially likely to bring folks together in pursuit of a bonding, identity-shaping objective -- i.e., provide a vehicle for participants to define themselves in a way that sets them apart from the surrounding, impersonal society. Large corporations focused on the bottom-line are less likely to meet that need. Microsoft, for example, is an obvious megastructure.
But to the extent that particular corporations do serve a mediating function, it is important to acknowledge that function and protect it where possible, just as it's important to protect the mediating functions of voluntary associations. (That's why Dale was such an important case for the Boy Scouts to win, regardless of whether one approves of their policy toward gays.) My concern with the "piece of paper" rhetoric is that it encourages our society's tendency to view legal issues through the one-dimensional lens of individual rights versus collective will. If we want to bring about a society with a robust system of bulwarks against alienating and coercive megastructures, we may need to think seriously before poking holes in corporations' claims to be something more than the sum of their parts.
Rob
