Miracle of Miracles
Not one, but two, articles worthy of comment on today's op/ed pages of The LA Times.
First, it's argued here that consistency mandates that -- if Catholic priests are to withhold communion from pro-choice legislators -- the same penalty should apply to Catholic judges who vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.
What's most interesting about the piece is its attempts to ignore the distinction between the judicial and legislative functions. Legislators are there to make law and policy -- and are therefore morally responsible for the policies they create and support. Judges exist to interpret the law . . . and so long as they are doing so, they cannot be held morally responsible for upholding, for example, a law that is constitutional, even if they find it morally abhorrent.
The author tries to finesse this fact as follows:
Judges (in theory anyway) are ruling on the basis of a disinterested reading of the law, not their personal beliefs. But pro-choice members of Congress can similarly argue that their pro-choice votes are a reflection not of their own views but of the desires of their constituents.
Even setting aside all the philosophical distinctions between different models of representative democracy (i.e. the delegate vs. the trustee), his argument falls apart. After all, the members of Congress are not morally or ethically bound to vote on every topic in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents the way that judges are bound to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution.
And all the "pro-choice members of Congress" need to do is to be honest with their constituents at election time. . . and tell them that they feel morally obligated to vote against abortion when making law. Then, either (1) they get elected and are free to vote in accordance with their morals; or (2) they aren't elected, and the issue is irrelevant. The problem for Catholic pro-choice politicians is that they want to be both Catholic and pro-choice without penalty (either electoral or religious).
And if it seems harsh to demand of these politicians that they risk forfeiting their office, well, if a judicial nominee said that his personal beliefs required him to vote against all abortion rights even if they were otherwise legally permissible, he wouldn't be a judge in the first place . . . nor should he be.
(2) The second interesting piece is by Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson, discussing the possbility, as the article's summary puts it, that "A void left in 'Christendom' by pervasive lack of belief may be creating a soft target for the religious fanaticism of others."
With it he cites statistics illustrating the precipitous decline of faith in England. It's sad -- and reminds one of the old cliche: "Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything." It's certainly true, religiously speaking.
Ferguson writes:
Why have the British lost their historic faith? Like so many difficult questions, this seems at first sight to have an easy answer. But before you blame it on "the '60s" — the Beatles, the Pill and the miniskirt — remember that the United States had all these earthly delights too, without ceasing to be a Christian country. To be frank, I have no idea what the answer is. But I do know that it matters.
Could the answer be in America's wonderful religious tolerance and diversity? Unlike England, thanks to the First Amendment, there has never been any Church of the USA. And the fact that so many religions have been so welcome may have allowed a million flowers to bloom -- and insulated the various churches from the crisis in confidence suffered by a lot of monolithic institutions (like governments) during the '60's and '70's, both here and in the UK.
In any case, Professor Ferguson is surely right to worry about "as the moral vacuum that de-Christianization has created." For, in fact, as he asserts, "a weekly dose of Christian doctrine helps to provide an ethical framework for life."
One can only hope and pray that more people choose to read something like this or this. For just about any kind of (non-murderous, non-jihadist)religous faith is better -- for all of us -- than none.
First, it's argued here that consistency mandates that -- if Catholic priests are to withhold communion from pro-choice legislators -- the same penalty should apply to Catholic judges who vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.
What's most interesting about the piece is its attempts to ignore the distinction between the judicial and legislative functions. Legislators are there to make law and policy -- and are therefore morally responsible for the policies they create and support. Judges exist to interpret the law . . . and so long as they are doing so, they cannot be held morally responsible for upholding, for example, a law that is constitutional, even if they find it morally abhorrent.
The author tries to finesse this fact as follows:
Judges (in theory anyway) are ruling on the basis of a disinterested reading of the law, not their personal beliefs. But pro-choice members of Congress can similarly argue that their pro-choice votes are a reflection not of their own views but of the desires of their constituents.
Even setting aside all the philosophical distinctions between different models of representative democracy (i.e. the delegate vs. the trustee), his argument falls apart. After all, the members of Congress are not morally or ethically bound to vote on every topic in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents the way that judges are bound to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution.
And all the "pro-choice members of Congress" need to do is to be honest with their constituents at election time. . . and tell them that they feel morally obligated to vote against abortion when making law. Then, either (1) they get elected and are free to vote in accordance with their morals; or (2) they aren't elected, and the issue is irrelevant. The problem for Catholic pro-choice politicians is that they want to be both Catholic and pro-choice without penalty (either electoral or religious).
And if it seems harsh to demand of these politicians that they risk forfeiting their office, well, if a judicial nominee said that his personal beliefs required him to vote against all abortion rights even if they were otherwise legally permissible, he wouldn't be a judge in the first place . . . nor should he be.
(2) The second interesting piece is by Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson, discussing the possbility, as the article's summary puts it, that "A void left in 'Christendom' by pervasive lack of belief may be creating a soft target for the religious fanaticism of others."
With it he cites statistics illustrating the precipitous decline of faith in England. It's sad -- and reminds one of the old cliche: "Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything." It's certainly true, religiously speaking.
Ferguson writes:
Why have the British lost their historic faith? Like so many difficult questions, this seems at first sight to have an easy answer. But before you blame it on "the '60s" — the Beatles, the Pill and the miniskirt — remember that the United States had all these earthly delights too, without ceasing to be a Christian country. To be frank, I have no idea what the answer is. But I do know that it matters.
Could the answer be in America's wonderful religious tolerance and diversity? Unlike England, thanks to the First Amendment, there has never been any Church of the USA. And the fact that so many religions have been so welcome may have allowed a million flowers to bloom -- and insulated the various churches from the crisis in confidence suffered by a lot of monolithic institutions (like governments) during the '60's and '70's, both here and in the UK.
In any case, Professor Ferguson is surely right to worry about "as the moral vacuum that de-Christianization has created." For, in fact, as he asserts, "a weekly dose of Christian doctrine helps to provide an ethical framework for life."
One can only hope and pray that more people choose to read something like this or this. For just about any kind of (non-murderous, non-jihadist)religous faith is better -- for all of us -- than none.
posted by LadybugUSA at 1:06 PM
1 Comments:
Linked at my site. Thank you!
Post a Comment
<< Home