Joe Knippenberg defends Romney's speech against critics who object to his apparent exclusion of nonbelievers. David Neff offers an evangelical perspective on the speech.
Friday, December 14, 2007
More on Romney
Cultural Selection
William Saletan explains why an emerging theory of evolution suggests that today's driving force of natural selection is culture.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Conscience (with a few conditions)
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ever sensitive to claims of conscience by pro-life physicians, has emphasized the duty of all physicians to ensure that patients have access to an abortion provider:
Providers with moral or religious objections should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views or ensure that referral processes are in place so that patients have access to the service that the physician does not wish to provide.
Sure, we respect your claim of conscience -- as long as you exercise it while waving a referral slip and standing in the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Stone on the Founders on Religion
Chicago law prof Geoff Stone bashes Mitt Romney (and others) for espousing a "disturbingly distorted version of history" suggesting that the Founders intended "to create a Christian Nation." He then proceeds through the familiar litany of quotes from Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine showing that they were not Christians. I'm no historian, but a couple of Stone's assertions grabbed my attention. Is he on solid ground, for example, in claiming that "most of the Founders" viewed "religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive?" And it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to make the sweeping claim that "the Founders" "understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter." And then there's Stone's conclusion:
[The Founders] would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring “faith-based” initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism – as long as he keeps it out of our government.
Is there some evidence of which I'm unaware suggesting that the Founders would have been "appalled" by the notion that religious organizations should be eligible to compete with non-religious organizations to provide government-funded social services? Or that private citizens should be able to direct government funds to a social services provider of their own choosing, even if the provider is religious? Does a dispassionate reading of history really suggest that "toleration" of a strictly private faith best captures the Founders' vision of the relationship between faith and public life?
I agree with Stone that proponents of the "Christian nation" tend to selectively quote Founders in a way that supports their own social/political/legal agendas. Proponents of the "secular nation," it seems, tend to do the same thing.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Totalitarianism in Philadelphia
I appreciate Fr. Araujo's concern that Philadelphia's decision to end its below-market lease arrangement with the Boy Scouts is another "step toward totalitarianism." It prompts a question, though: What if Philadelphia was charging $1 per year rent to the White Scouts of America, an organization that did not allow non-white youth to participate? Would the revocation of that lease amount to totalitarianism, or simply represent the city acting to facilitate the common good by sending a powerful message on behalf of the citizenry that discrimination will not enjoy government subsidies? If our reaction to the revocation of the White Scouts' lease is different than our reaction to the revocation of the Boy Scouts' lease, I don't think our objection is rooted in fear of totalitarianism. As I've argued elsewhere, I strongly believe that the government should not exclude certain groups from access to public fora based on the substance of the moral claims they are making, but the flip side is that the government must be free to express the citizenry's views about those moral claims.
If we want to debate about whether discrimination against gays should be used to justify the same sort of government action as discrimination against racial minorities, that's a worthwhile debate to have. But it appears that the elected officials of Philadelphia have resolved that debate. We can disagree with that resolution, but that doesn't make it totalitarian.
Out of the armchair
Kwame Anthony Appiah explores the turn toward "experimental" philosophy.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Romney's Incoherence
If you're interested in my reaction to Governor Romney's speech, you can listen to an interview I gave this morning on Minnesota Public Radio. (My appearance runs from the 25 minute mark to the 50 minute mark.) For those who aren't so inclined, one point I emphasized was the speech's incoherence: a beautiful and stirring embrace of pluralism ("Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."), juxtaposed against the awkwardness of religious pandering ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of mankind," but no mention of distinctive Mormon beliefs).
Live from the womb
If you haven't yet seen it, the American Life League has posted a pretty dramatic video of 4-D images from the womb.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Law school tuition & Justice
Brian Tamanaha has long been rattling the cages of his friends and colleagues to start talking about the social justice and fairness implications of skyrocketing law school tuition. He now wonders:
Every year, law schools sponsor an extraordinary number of conferences on a variety of issues, with justice an often-mentioned theme. Yet I do not recall seeing a conference on the justice-related implications of the high tuition charged by law schools (heading toward $40,000 per year at private schools).
In addition to the points mentioned above, such a critical self-examination might also consider the consequences of the shift away from need-based scholarships, and the fact that in some law schools students at the bottom of the class, those with the most dismal earning prospects, are now subsidizing students at the top of the class, those who stand to earn the most.
Shouldn't Catholic law schools be leading the charge on this, particularly at a time when salary prospects are so far removed from the expectations of most non-elite law school grads? (It's not an easy problem to solve, I realize. Law school is too expensive, but that does not mean I think I'm overpaid. There should be more need-based scholarships, but I still want to attract high-LSAT students. Etc., etc.)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
MoJ-ers Unite!
Lawyers being lawyers, it's not enough for the ABA Journal to identify the top 100 blawgs -- someone has to win! The Catholic legal theorists are clear underdogs to the libertarians, but as two of my favorite philosophers would say, "We're on a mission from God," and that has to count for something. Vote your conscience here!
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
