Author: Lee M.

The blog of an English Lutheran (who knew such marvelous creatures existed?). He’s just wrapping up a series on worship, contrasting Lutheran and Anglican approaches.

The idea that human life is intrinsically sacred is not a specifically Christian thought. But the gospel itself, the message that Christ died for His enemies, is our reason for being ultimately responsible for the neighbor’s–and especially the enemy’s–life. We can only say this to him if we say to ourselves that we cannot dispose of him according to our own will. — John Howard Yoder, The Original Revolution

Archbishop Charles Chaput wades into the religion and politics controversy:

The theologian Karl Barth once said, “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.”

That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not “impose their beliefs on society” or warnings about the need for “the separation of church and state.” These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That’s the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we “ought” to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody’s ought becomes a “must” for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it’s how pluralism works.

Nice to see a Catholic bishop quote Karl Barth!

Bill Keezer debunks elitist scaremongering about “uninformed” voters.

William H. Willimon has unexpectedly (to me, anyway) high praise for the Gospel of John (The movie, that is. Though one presumes he’s a fan of the book too). Review here.

From Tenth Presbyterian Church here in Philadelphia:

As a church, our primary calling is to declare the Word of God, which is the only basis for our authority. As we teach the Bible, we may sometimes explore its political implications, but we may not bind anyone’s conscience beyond the teaching of Scripture. And since most political discussions fall into that category, they fall outside the boundaries of our authority as a church. Our calling is spiritual, not political.

…there is an evangelistic reason why we do not politicize our preaching. When the church becomes simply another way of doing politics, then people rightly perceive that politics is what really matters. So to the extent that a church becomes identified with a political cause, it loses its ability to communicate its spiritual message of salvation in Christ.

More here.

(via Sacra Doctrina)

Jennifer at Scandal of Particularity and Camassia have good posts on the question of Providence. This is an issue I feel woefully underequipped to address. I think the direction in which one has to look, though, is at the examples of Christ and the Martyrs who followed God’s will even when it involved doing what seemed like folly. Maybe what a belief in Providence asserts is not that every particular event is willed by God (like finding a parking space!), but that the future is in God’s hands, and our role is to play our part as best we can. However, this is one place where I find it best to follow Wittgenstein’s advice to shut up about that of which I can’t speak well…

This article by ethicist Glen Stassen has been making the rounds, purporting to show that the abortion rate declined under Clinton due to economic conditions.

National Right to Life takes issue with Dr. Stassen’s statistics here.

The discussion on religion & politics continues! Bill Keezer weighs in with a response to Kevin‘s remarks (here and here) which were partially a response to some comments made by the Smallholder at Naked Villainy. (Some of my earlier posts on these issues are here, here and here.)

One of the issues that keeps coming up is whether John Kerry is being principled in taking the personally opposed/publicly pro-choice position with respect to abortion. Let me just offer a few points of attempted clarification.

1. Is John Kerry really “personally opposed” to abortion? He gave a speech to some blue-collar Catholic union members where he said that he believes life begins at conception. But when asked to clarify by, I think, Peter Jennings, he said that, well, the process of life begins at conception. I’m not sure he’s ever unequivocally said what he thinks the moral status of the fetus is (which, as someone who depends on large contributions from NARAL and the like, is probably wise).

2. Kerry says that opposition to abortion is “an article of faith” that he can’t impose on others. But is this actually what the Roman Catholic Church itself teaches? My understanding (which, as a non-Catholic is likely to be flawed) is that Catholics hold that the natural law, not faith, teaches that abortion is the taking of innocent human life. This is not something that requires faith to know. This is precisely what people like Richard John Neuhaus have argued — that the moral law is accessible to all people regardless of religious faith and that opposition to evils like abortion and euthanasia should be based on that rather than an appeal to sectarian religious belief.

3. What sort of political actions or rhetoric might someone engage in if they were personally opposed to abortion but nevertheless thought that they couldn’t impose that belief on others? That is, aren’t there a lot of other things they might do short of criminalizing abortion if they really believed it was a grave evil?

For instance, I would think that someone who personally opposed abortion might, at the very least, oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, since that compels those who share this belief to fund something they consider to be the equivalent of murder (this used to be known as the “moderate” pro-choice position). Or he might even speak out against this practice, calling it a crime that in the richest nation in the history of the world so many women feel compelled to dispose of their children. There are a lot of things a “pro-choice” politician might do short of advocating the criminalization of abortion. So, I think a principled position in this respect is possible (for a fuller description of such a position see here). What I’m less sure of is that John Kerry exemplifies this kind of principled position.

I also agree with Kevin, though, that the line between “moral” and “sectarian” is not always easy to draw. I don’t think this is something we can resolve a priori in fact. I think what happens (or should happen if democracy is functioning properly) is that we reach out to others who may be coming from very different starting points and try to build some kind of consensus. This won’t always be possible – for instance, most Catholics have given up on the possibility of building a consensus to restrict contraception, but many still see a consensus in opposition to abortion and euthanasia as possible.

What I think many religious believers rightly object to is the notion that religious beliefs are ipso facto illegitimate reasons for advocating a particular policy. It may not be prudent to argue publicly in religious terms (or then again it might), since that will likely convince fewer people. I’m inclined to see all this as much messier than a strict church/state separationist would allow. I’m also on record as questioning the very faith/reason dichotomy that often drives these discussions. That is, I don’t think “secular” moralites are necessarily any better founded than many religious ones.

Reason magazine has asked various contributors to disclose who they’re voting for and why, as well as who they voted for last time around, what their most embarrassing vote was, and who their all-time favorite president is.

Samples:

James Bovard

2004 vote: I will probably vote for Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. Both of the major-party candidates brazenly flaunt their contempt for the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of who wins in November, the U.S. likely will have a lousy president for the next four years.

2000 vote: I abstained.

Most embarrassing vote: I voted for Gerald Ford in 1976. He was not that embarrassing, compared to Jimmy Carter. And compared to George W. Bush, Ford was verbally graceful.

Favorite president: It might be a coin toss between Washington and Jefferson.

Washington set a magnificent example of self-restraint, protecting the new nation from both his own power lust and unnecessary wars (despite foolish popular demands). Jefferson masterfully reined in the federal government from the tyrannical Alien and Sedition Act persecutions that John Adams launched.

Brian Doherty

2004 vote: I am a principled nonvoter. If I were forced to vote at gunpoint, I’d pick the Libertarian Party’s Michael Badnarik, whose views on the proper role of government most closely resemble mine.

2000 vote: I did not vote. Those who vote have no right to complain.

Most embarrassing vote: I’ve been saved the embarrassment of ever having to feel any sense of responsibility, of even the smallest size, for the actions of any politician.

Favorite president: In their roles as president, I can’t be an enthusiastic fan of any of them, but for his role in crafting the Constitution, a document that held some (unrealized) promise to limit government powers, James Madison.

Nat Hentoff

2004 vote: I’m not voting for anyone at the top of the ticket. I can’t vote for Bush, who supports Ashcroft’s various “revisions” to the Bill of Rights, since our liberties are what we’re supposed to be fighting for. As for Kerry, I think he’s an empty suit: How much time did he give his years in the Senate in his convention speech, about 40 seconds?

2000 vote: I voted for Nader last time. But he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq, which would lead to a state of nature like Thomas Hobbes had; it would be disastrous. He’s also become part of the bash-Israel crowd, and to get on ballots he’s been cooperating with Lenora Fulani, who has been accused of harboring anti-Semitic biases.

Most embarrassing vote: Well, I didn’t mind voting for Nader in 2000, because Gore had a whole series of empty suits during that campaign, and I didn’t think much of Bush either. I can’t think of any votes I’m particularly embarrassed about.

Favorite president: FDR. He could have done much more to help the victims of the Holocaust, but he did act decisively (if trickily) to take us into the war, which was essential. Otherwise we’d all be speaking German. And as Cass Sunstein has pointed out, FDR was the one who laid out a “second bill of rights,” with economic freedoms like a right to decent housing.

P.J. O’Rourke

2004 vote: George W. Bush, because I don’t want Johnnie Cochran on the Supreme Court.

2000 vote: George W. Bush. (I always vote Republican because Republicans have fewer ideas. Although, in the case of George W., not fewer enough.)

Most embarrassing vote: A 1968 write-in for “Chairman Meow,” my girlfriend’s cat. It seemed very funny at the time. As I mentioned, this was 1968.

Favorite president: Calvin Coolidge — why say more?

Steven Pinker



2004 vote: Kerry. The reason is reason: Bush uses too little of it. In the war on terror, his administration stints on loose-nuke surveillance while confiscating nail clippers and issuing color-coded duct tape advisories. His restrictions on stem cell research are incoherent, his dismissal of possible climate change inexcusable.

2000 vote: Gore, with misgivings.

Most embarrassing vote: I left Canada shortly after turning 18 and became a U.S. citizen only recently, so I haven’t voted enough to be too embarrassed yet.

Favorite president: James Madison, for articulating the basis for democracy in terms of the nature of human nature.