Mirror of Justice

"The Rise of Secular Religion"

This essay, in The American Interest, by David Goldman, is a review of Jody Bottum's new book, An Anxious Age:  The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America.  I have not yet read the book, but I thought the review-essay was very interesting:

. . . Bottum wants us to understand that the inner life of secular Americans remains dense with spiritual experience, and that the post-Protestant experience resembles the supernatural world of the Middle Ages, but with new spiritual entities in place of the old devils and elves: “social and political ideas elevated to the status of strange divinities . . . born of the ancient religious hunger to perceive more in the world than just the give and take of ordinary human beings, but adapted to an age that piously congratulates itself on its escape from many of the strictures of ancient religion.” What Bottum calls the “re-enchantment and spiritual thickening of reality” is the subject of the book. It is an elusive quarry, for it is not a simple task to show that self-styled rationalists entertain a firm belief in the modern equivalent of ghosts and witches. For the post-Protestants, “the social forces of bigotry, power, corruption, mass opinion, militarism, and oppression are the constant themes of history” against which they must array themselves[.]

There's more . . .

The Global Freedom Network

I have previously blogged about the important work of many Catholic religious orders in the fight against human trafficking, as well as the leadership of Pope Francis on this issue. On Monday the critical role faith communities play in combatting this scourge was further underscored and advanced with the launching of the Global Freedom Network. Representatives of the Catholic, Anglican, and Muslim world signed the agreement at a Vatican press conference in which they pledged to work together to end human trafficking by 2020.

The Initiative is important on many fronts, and a testament to the potential of faith institutions and individuals who translate faith into action. First, it underscores the importance of faith communities it preventing and combatting human trafficking, as well as their important historical role of working directly with victims – who often come from the most forgotten segments of our society. Second, it acknowledges that human trafficking is a global problem which knows no geographical boundaries. Faith institutions and organizations are one of the few organizational bodies with worldwide reach to members. Therefore, when mobilized, they can effectively act. Finally, the historical accord also is a testament to how one individual, in this case Australian Andrew Forrest, can see an injustice such as human trafficking and respond with faith and action. Forrest, a mining magnate, founded the Walk Free Foundation after encountering children who were the victims of trafficking. His organization is funding this initiative and he is committed to this work.

The Global Freedom Network arose out of an important June 2013 meeting between Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, when the two men looked for ways to pursue concrete cooperation. It also follows an important November 2013 conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences which included many of the world's experts on human trafficking. These minds came together and created points of action necessary to successfully defeat this crime.

While the goal of eradication may seem aspirational, the Network has specific concrete objectives on which to work to attain that goal. The Vatican press office reports that, "[p]lanned actions include urging governments to publicly endorse the establishment of the Global Fund to End Slavery and persuading multi-national businesses to commit to eradicating slavery from their supply chains. By mobilizing the world's major faith communities, this new Network hopes to bring an end by 2020 to what Pope Francis has dared to call a crime against humanity."

Eduardo Returns to Lead Cornell

Dear Friends, I am delighted to report that Eduardo Penalver is returning to Cornell Law School to serve as our new Dean.  His appointment will take effect this July.  The Law School's announcement is here.

Paulsen on "Lady Edith and Abortion Rights"

Here's a strong and engaging article, from Public Discourse, by my (always strong and engaging) colleague Mike Paulsen, on Downton Abbey's Lady Edith and her unplanned pregnancy. (I'll say no more, to avoid spoilers--and Mike gives fair warning too at the beginning of the piece.)

Is Democracy in Trouble; and does Catholic legal theory have a solution?

 

Thanks to Rick for bringing to our attention the recent article in The Economist entitled “What’s gone wrong with democracy.” I have not read Prof. Philpott’s book to which Rick also referred, but I hope to do so soon. However, I recently completed Erik Larson’s In the Garden of Beasts, which is an account of Ambassador William E. Dodd’s experience as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 1933 to the end of 1937.

When Amb. Dodd returned to the U.S. in early 1938, he delivered an address in New York City and warned Americans and the world how democracy was in peril. It was not necessarily in peril solely because of totalitarian regimes like those of National Socialism in Germany or Soviet Communism in Russia. The source of the problem identified by Dodd went to democracy itself. As he said in his speech, even though humanity was in great danger of an impending disastrous world conflict, “democratic governments seem not to know what to do.” He was aware of the failure of the U.S and the great European democracies to respond to Hitler’s early threats even though there was ample warning. Thus, in Dodd’s estimation, “Western civilization, religious, personal and economic freedom are in grave danger.” (Those who argue that the Mirror of Justice addresses too frequently the issue of religious liberty today should take note.)

Dodd argued that the antipathy of the United States was attributable to the government itself and “certain privileged business groups” who let the crisis that led to World War II happen. Today I would add a third attributable source to this group who allow crises to emerge and prosper: those special interest groups who claim to represent everyone but, in fact, represent their own narrow and often valueless and amoral interests. Has The Economist article changed the analyses of Dodd’s insight?

From my perspective, if offers some solid evaluation of the problems which democracy must face if it is to survive, but it is also off the mark on other of its assertions.

The first point of value in The Economist article focuses on the desire for “rules-based democracy.” This is vital to democratic institutions if the rules (laws) that the democracy promotes and promulgates emerge from objective human intelligence that comprehend intelligible reality and serve the common good. But when the rules a democracy promotes are based not on this formula but on self-interest that denies the existence of objective intelligence and the common good, democracy can easily become a thinly-disguised totalitarianism as Christopher Dawson warned in the early 1950s and as Blessed John Paul II presaged in 1991 in Centesimus Annus.

A sustainable democracy, as The Economist claims the U.S. was, takes hard work of those members of society who are simultaneously its members. Benjamin Franklin was asked a question at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by a Mrs. Powel, “What, Dr. Franklin, have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin’s pithy response was: “A republic if you can keep it.” Franklin’s response asserts that republican democracy is the work of everyone who is a member of the polis. It is not the preserve of the state—which ought to be a servant rather than master of the people who are governed—or of special interests; rather, it is the right and responsibility of all the members of the polity. And herein resides the problem which The Economist article attempts to address.

As the article implies, once crises are over, everybody—with the exception of the technocrats and special interests—seem to go on holiday. But democracy is and remains the work of the governed less they become the subjects of present-day overlords. The words of Lincoln at Gettysburg remind us that the government of the United States is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But if the people should lose interest in their right and duty to govern themselves, then many of the problems raised by The Economist emerge with growing ferocity because the government as defined by Lincoln has perished.

A major source of the challenges for democracy, according to the article, is that people are satisfied with receiving benefits from a welfare state but are not interested in contributing to the ruling of the state. Oddly, the article argues that present day China may be an attractive alternative to democracy. While the Chinese regime, as the article states, is obsessed with control, it pays close attention to public opinion. As the authors posit, “Many Chinese are prepared to put up with their system if it delivers growth.” The state has delivered growth, but that growth is now in decline. What will the state deliver in the future if this trend continues as it likely will? Public opinion is not the effort that promotes a durable democracy.

Ironically, the parallels between the problems identified by the article concerning Western democracy and the alleged solutions of China are the same: give the populace what they want right now. Democracy is hard work, the work of those who are simultaneously the governed and the governor. Bread and circuses did not work for Rome nor will this solution work for China, the U.S., or any other nation that calls itself a democracy. One Chinese academic referred to by the article argues that democracy is destroying the West. But this is not true. It is an imposter of democracy that is generating the problems which are corroding the cherished values that must be associated with self-governance.

The Economist further contends that “individual rights and independent judiciaries” are vital to stable and thriving democracy. To an extent, there is some truth to this claim, but more is needed for the claim to be true for the long run. Rights are a popular item for discussion today, but too many advocates for them forget about or even deny the correlative responsibilities that must accompany the claim to rights if the rights that are championed are to be durable. Moreover, rights are self-evident and the gift of the Creator and the source of human dignity. They cannot be the gift of the state, of some political party, or of a special interest. If they are, then they are gossamer. In addition, hard questions need to be addressed about what makes the judiciary independent? Independence from special interests and the power of a totalitarian state is a desirable thing, but independence from the accountability of objective intelligence that must comprehend the intelligible reality of human nature and the world so that the common good can be advanced is not desirable if the noble institution of self-governance is to survive.

I now find myself living in a part of the U.S. that calls itself the Cradle of Liberty. There once was a great sense of pride in this label because the region was a crucible of participation in the common life of the res publica in which the members of society were free to express their opinion and make their substantive contribution. Today, however, if one departs from the thinking of a one-party state where any departure from its orthodoxy is viewed as treason or bigotry, the end of democracy is not only near, it has arrived and taken up residence from which it seemingly cannot be saved. The desire to offer well-formulated objective reasons for alternatives to the product of governance may benignly be dismissed as some form of eccentricity; however, it can just as easily be treated as a new enemy of the state. The “micro-powers” of which the article discusses are not only evident in the world of international law and politics and the operations of NGOs and transnational lobbyists; they are also present in the backyard of local and regional politics in the U.S.

The article is on target when it mentions that the greatest challenge to democracy is from within the democracy itself. As the comic strip character Pogo said: we have met the enemy, and he is us. This is what Dodd contended in 1938; what Christopher Dawson identified as a growing problem in the early 1950s; and what John Paul II discussed in 1991. “[L]iv[ing] from day to day, indulging in the pleasure of the moment” is antithetical to good governance especially if it terms itself a democracy. The stability of such a democracy is only that of an edifice made of cards: impressive to look at but inherently unsound when even the smallest disturbance is present. The clear antidote is participation and responsibility. As was attributed to Edmund Burke, all that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Apathy of the events of the day is a recipe for chaos and disaster. And that is where the Catholic academic who participates in the development of Catholic legal theory has and must exercise a responsible role in addressing the problems raised in The Economist article.

As teachers of the law we prepare the lawyers of tomorrow who will be leaders of their communities as practitioners, legislators, administrators, and judges. They are also citizens; they are members of the self-governed. What values do we inculcate in them? What kind of reasoning do we offer to them? What models of our own behavior do we present for their consideration? Our influence to alter the course that may lead to the end of democracy is not insignificant. We are not reformers; rather, we are renovators of the most durable form of governance yet established: the governance of, by, and for the people themselves. From our responsible participation, may others learn well, for the once cherished institution of democracy is at stake.

 

RJA sj

 

Life is Good Redux: Rick Garnett's workmanlike observations about Big Mountain Jesus

Rick's recent post about Big Mountain Jesus for some reason brought to mind one of my favorite old MOJ posts (from 2010, about a bumper sticker). I didn't quite realize how the two were connected until rereading Rick's old post after finding it to link here. As it turns out, that earlier post includes the statement that "Jake is the buddy who calls to cajole you into skipping work for a powder-day." Now, it seems, Jake's cajoling has brought Rick to believe that his earlier observation about the relationship between a day of work and a day of skiing on fresh powder identified only an apparent conflict.

Big Mountain Jesus saved . . . for now

I visited the University of Montana School of Law in beautiful Missoula earlier this week, to talk with students and give a public talk on religious freedom and the constitution.  (Thanks to Anthony Johnstone for the hospitality!).  Since I was out there anyway, I decided to do some (ahem) field work, and visit "Big Mountain Jesus," up at Whitefish Mountain Resort (which happened to have recently been gifted with more than two feet of fresh snow).  Here is a picture:    

The statue was put up in 1953, by the Knights of Columbus as a memorial for members of the 10th Mountain Division.  As this news story reports:

The monument, which also included a plaque dedicated to the WWII soldiers, was built and maintained by private efforts. Every 10 years the permit for the monument was renewed with the Flathead National Forest.

In 2010, The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation would demand that the Forest Service not renew the permit. While initially agreeing, public outcry led the service to reconsider.

In February 2012, FFRF sued to have Big Mountain Jesus removed from the government owned property.

Powder magazine had this feature on the statute, and the case, recently.  The FFRF lost in the District Court, but has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  Judge Dana Christensen wrote:

"To some, Big Mountain Jesus is offensive and to others it represents only a religious symbol," Chistensen wrote. "But the court suspects that most who happen to encounter Big Mountain Jesus, it neither offends nor inspires."

He said that to many the statue "serves as a historical reminder of those bygone days of sack lunches, ungroomed runs, rope tows, T-bars, leather ski boots, and 210 cm. skis."

Some of the Court's precedents might suggest that the solution here is to invite the installation of a statue of Ullr close by . . .

"What's Gone Wrong with Democracy , , , and how to revive it"

The cover story in the current (March 1-7) issue of The Economist is called "What's Gone Wrong with Democracy . . . and how to revive it."  If you are able to track it down (without a subscription), it's worth a read.  It was a bit strange to me, though, that religion and religious freedom were nearly invisible in the discussion about the conditions and enablers of stable democracy.  Indeed, it seemed a pretty big oversight to miss even the possibility that some religious traditions might "do better" than others at producing and nurturing stable democracies.  Putting that aside, at the very least, there is good reason to believe that religious freedom correlates positively with (sustainable) democratization.  The authors should take a look at Dan Philpott et al.'s God's Century . . .

"Trying Like Hell to be a Unitarian" (i.e. Smart and Good)

A friend sent me this quote from Pastrix, a book by Nadia Bolz-Weber, an incisive and funny Lutheran pastor who blogs at "Sarcastic Lutheran," has lots of tattoos and swears a lot, and really gets the idea of grace (see the book at p. 45):

While in California, I spent several months trying like hell to be a Unitarian. Quakerism didn't work for me, Wicca was great, but I always felt like I was just visiting. So I hoped Unitarianism would be just right. Unitarians are such smart, good people. They seemed so hopeful. They vote Democrat and recycle and love women and they let you believe anything you want to, and I wanted to be one of them badly. But I couldn't pull it off. Four years of sobriety hadn't come to me as a result of hopefulness and positive thinking. It was grace. Unitarians just don't talk much about our need for God's grace. They have a higher opinion of human beings than I have ever felt comfortable claiming, as someone who both reads the paper and knows the condition of my own heart. Having had the experience of getting sober and feeling like God interrupted my bullshit life, I couldn't be comforted by my own divinity or awesomeness, although I'd love it if I could. In the end, as much as I desperately wanted to be Unitarian, I couldn't because what I needed was a specific divine source of reconciliation and wholeness, a source that is connected to me in love, but does not come from inside of me.

Unitarians are the example here, but the streak runs through me and through an awful lot of us: the streak of maintaining a very high opinion of ourselves and of the capabilities of humans in general. As a result, when other people fall short of those expectations, boy, are they in for a verbal or digital thrashing. (Those people who slam the other side without showing any sympathy or grace, I sure do despise them.... Oops, sorry.)

Legal Scholars Urge Rejection of Proposed Mississippi RFRA

The legal scholars--many of whom are quite well known to us here at MOJ--elaborate and defend their position in a letter to the Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives and to both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee B.  The letter--which is worth a careful read--is available here:  Download 2014-03-10 Letter_by_Religious_Liberty_Scholars_Opposing_Mississippi_Bill_2681.