Voter attitudes and patterns in the upcoming 2012 GOP primaries will reveal a lot about the Republican Party and Conservative Movement. The majority of political pundits, politicians, journalists, and the like support Mitt Romney as the only rational choice and plausible candidate who stands a chance against Obama in the general election. With Cain’s inevitable exit, Gingrich’s excessive political and personal baggage, Perry’s incompetency, Bauchman and Paul’s extremism, and Huntsman and Santorum’s consistent unpopularity, Romney is the man for the job. Curiously enough, recent polls suggest that Romney continues to lack steam as he trails Gingrich. If Romney is the only rational candidate, why then is Gingrich passing him by? Several polls indicate that a high percentage of Republican voters refuse to vote for a ‘mormon’, even if the ‘mormon’ will restore conservative values and policy to the executive office. The question arises: Is a significant percentage of the Republican Party a bigot?
I will not support a party that openly and outwardly demonstrates bigotry; whether on race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Surely Mitt’s religion, like any religion, to some degree shapes the way in which he sees and understands the world. For Hitchens and others to investigate and even scrutinize the faith is an essential contribution to the political dialogue (insofar as it remains honest and rigorous). But to simply discount a candidate based solely on religion only makes transparent one’s intolerance and intellectual laziness. Those who wish to exercise bigotry mistakenly assume religion (Mormonism) will sharply define Romney’s policy. With what evidence is this absurd assumption made?
The GOP primaries will say a lot about the character of the Republican Party. Though I disagree with President Obama in many respects, I value character over policy. If the Republicans allow the Evangelical Right to hijack this election in the name of bigotry, ‘call me crazy’ but my vote will go towards President Obama in the name of character.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The 'Ministerial' Exception
Last week the Supreme Court heard the argument in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, in which the Court considered the scope of the 'ministerial' exception. The Ministerial Exception attempts to establish a wall of separation between church and state. The free-exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment ostensibly protect churches from government encroachment in church doctrine and order. The question laid before the Court is: how far does the ministerial exception extend? Oyez provides a brief summary of the facts of the case.
In the 1990 Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith, the Court ruled that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even if the use of peyote was a religious ritual. In Smith, Justice Scalia wrote, "all generally, neutrally applicable laws" must be followed-even if they further relatively unimportant government purposes, and even if they suppress an individual's religion entirely. In Hosanna-Tabor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor quickly expressed that what bothers her is the possibility of the ministerial exception being used to deny court scrutiny of “a teacher who reports sexual abuse to the government and is fired because of that reporting.” She adds, grimly, “We know from the news recently that there was a church whose religious beliefs centered around sexually exploiting women and, I believe, children.” Chief Justice Roberts inquired the meaning and definition of a minister. He added, "what about churches who believe all members of their congregation are ministers?" The EEOC argues and the 6th circuit court of appeals affirmed, that the defendant served a more secular than 'ministerial' role at the school. But what about the Pope? The Pope acts as both a secular/political leader as well as a religious leader. Is the Pope a minister? Where ought the Court draw a line without infringing on religious liberty yet protecting and upholding other civil rights?
Certainly religion cannot escape the rule of law or receive exemption from the violation of basic civil rights. But nor should the government force the Archbishop of the Catholic Church to hire female priests. Justice Elena Kagan noted, "In order to make an argument of the ministerial exception," Kagan said, "you in some sense have to say that institutional autonomy is different from individual conscience; that we have said in Smith that state interests can trump individual conscience. And you want us to say that they can't trump institutional autonomy. So why is that?"
Your thoughts? My opinion is soon to come....
In the 1990 Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith, the Court ruled that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even if the use of peyote was a religious ritual. In Smith, Justice Scalia wrote, "all generally, neutrally applicable laws" must be followed-even if they further relatively unimportant government purposes, and even if they suppress an individual's religion entirely. In Hosanna-Tabor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor quickly expressed that what bothers her is the possibility of the ministerial exception being used to deny court scrutiny of “a teacher who reports sexual abuse to the government and is fired because of that reporting.” She adds, grimly, “We know from the news recently that there was a church whose religious beliefs centered around sexually exploiting women and, I believe, children.” Chief Justice Roberts inquired the meaning and definition of a minister. He added, "what about churches who believe all members of their congregation are ministers?" The EEOC argues and the 6th circuit court of appeals affirmed, that the defendant served a more secular than 'ministerial' role at the school. But what about the Pope? The Pope acts as both a secular/political leader as well as a religious leader. Is the Pope a minister? Where ought the Court draw a line without infringing on religious liberty yet protecting and upholding other civil rights?
Certainly religion cannot escape the rule of law or receive exemption from the violation of basic civil rights. But nor should the government force the Archbishop of the Catholic Church to hire female priests. Justice Elena Kagan noted, "In order to make an argument of the ministerial exception," Kagan said, "you in some sense have to say that institutional autonomy is different from individual conscience; that we have said in Smith that state interests can trump individual conscience. And you want us to say that they can't trump institutional autonomy. So why is that?"
Your thoughts? My opinion is soon to come....
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Compromise
The topic of this post is a reaction to the polarisation of American politics. President Obama's Middle East speech this past week was somehow taken to be an attack against the Jewish community; a deliberate attempt to redefine and weaken America's relationship with Israel. I did not see as such. Hours after the speech was delivered, bloggers, journalists, and editorials both commended and criticised the President as if his speech coincided with or departed from a deeply-rooted ideology. This is the problem with editorial/opinion pages; they are merely opinions.
Alarmed by the unduly amount of controversy sparked by a 55 minute youtube clip, I sat at my desk and listened. Obama, quite tactfully and accurately, pinpoints the underlying problems standing in the way between the Western and Arab worlds; stereotypical misunderstandings. Towards the end his remarks, the President called for a return to the 1967 Israel-Palestine borders. In other words, Obama pleaded with both sides to reach a compromise through land swaps. Throughout the speech Obama praises Israel, assuring America's continual support for and protection of a Jewish state. The only way forward is compromise. That is the end of violence.
I get it- people are committed to certain political ideals. What I believe America has lost is a commitment to the highest political ideal, the essence of politics; compromise. Sure- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, and a host of other political rights and obligations are certainly essential in any society. But lest we forget, the very source of a right, obligation or a society, is a body (polis) of individuals who agree to form an association, out of which the forums of deliberation lead to some form of compromise. While Tea-partiers have every right to cling to their 'No Tax' platform and while Left-wing nuts have every right to protest Military funerals, any advancement towards peace and reconciliation (the goods of society) requires compromise. A lack thereof has caused myself to become disenchanted with, and faithless in what I believe to be a beautiful thing- politics.
Alarmed by the unduly amount of controversy sparked by a 55 minute youtube clip, I sat at my desk and listened. Obama, quite tactfully and accurately, pinpoints the underlying problems standing in the way between the Western and Arab worlds; stereotypical misunderstandings. Towards the end his remarks, the President called for a return to the 1967 Israel-Palestine borders. In other words, Obama pleaded with both sides to reach a compromise through land swaps. Throughout the speech Obama praises Israel, assuring America's continual support for and protection of a Jewish state. The only way forward is compromise. That is the end of violence.
I get it- people are committed to certain political ideals. What I believe America has lost is a commitment to the highest political ideal, the essence of politics; compromise. Sure- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, and a host of other political rights and obligations are certainly essential in any society. But lest we forget, the very source of a right, obligation or a society, is a body (polis) of individuals who agree to form an association, out of which the forums of deliberation lead to some form of compromise. While Tea-partiers have every right to cling to their 'No Tax' platform and while Left-wing nuts have every right to protest Military funerals, any advancement towards peace and reconciliation (the goods of society) requires compromise. A lack thereof has caused myself to become disenchanted with, and faithless in what I believe to be a beautiful thing- politics.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Irony
Most notably, there are two concerns with religious intervention in the political or policy-making process. First, religious intervention and more specifically Christianity, establish God or the Bible as a legitimate authority. For example, torture is immoral because God says so in the Bible. Such argumentation presupposes that one or society ought to do whatever God or the Bible says. Second, religious intervention creates a problem of civility, or incivility. Religious arguments fail to resonate with a large portion of society whose members do not share the same religious belief cited to support the given argument. If a view supported only by religious belief prevails, it would not be because the argument has convinced everyone else (including non-believers), but because of religious dominance.
Some claim that a sense of implicit theocracy is embedded into religious argument. Before I begin to consider this notion of implicit theocracy, I shall consider two types of authority. First, theoretical authority: Paul Krugman is a renown economist. Owing to his educational background, experience, and academic work, Krugman’s ideas on economics are considered to be authoritative, particularly in comparison to one who studies law or medicine. Next to theoretical authority is practical authority. An example of practical authority is a police officer, a judge, or a legislator. In other words, one who exercises power and judgment over another. The concern with implicit theocracy in religious intervention is a concern about religion acting as a practical authority; that is, church leaders ruling society. If abortion is illegal because the Pope has denounced it, this is an act of practical authority. An authoritative figure, and in this case religious authoritative figure, legalizes or illegalizes an action solely on the premise that he or she says so. Most religions, however, make arguments such as: abortion is wrong or immoral, not because the Pope said so. Just as Paul Krugman is considered to be a theoretical authority on the financial crisis, there is certainly the possibility of there being an expert (not a ruler) on ethics or deep values. It would be dishonest and frankly silly to assert that any authority on ethics acts as a ruler which imposes values rather than acting as an intellectual guide to help one reach one’s own conclusions. In short, what is the difference between Paul Krugman as an expert and an expert in religion or ethics? Absolutely nothing.
Some accuse religious intervention and argumentation of assuming an implicit authority in biblical reference. Biblical reference, however, is nothing more than theoretical claim, similar to references to Krugman’s published works. Very rarely do Christians draw from the Bible to support policy arguments. Where in the Bible does it speak specifically to abortion or torture? Instead, religious arguments apply the principles or premises found in the Bible to a policy.
A policy debate on secular grounds respects and allows for mutual intelligibility; that is, everyone has the capacity (namely rationality) to understand the presented argument(s). Consider the following statement: “torture of God’s children is immoral. We ought to treat all as Jesus would.” Why would one make such a claim in a policy debate? There are multiple explanations. First, to persuade others to join a particular religion. Second, to persuade others of the seriousness of the issue of torture. Third, to explain why he or she believes this statement to be true. Fourth, to rally his or her own religious community. Fifth, to awaken his or her own community to the issue of (as in the given example) torture. If there may be multiple explanations behind this religious argument, one may ask; is engagement of non-believers and Christians necessarily a dialogue of death? Let us now consider two philosophical misconceptions as it relates to mutual intelligibility and the question posed above. The first misconception is: mutual understanding is an all or nothing business. A non-believer both completely understands and identifies with a religious argument or not. The second misconception is: communication is only possible between persons who share a common framework of concepts.
Is speaking on religious grounds to non-believers impossible and therefore uncivil? Just because only a few people are willing to step outside their familiar mind-set and seriously consider the ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ does not mean the thoughtful demand for understanding religious argument is uncivil. We cannot engage with every issue or everyone. Time does not permit. But just because one decides not to engage with religious argument and instead chooses to engage with Krugman or any other theoretical authority does not mean that the religious argument advanced is uncivil.
John Rawls spoke of a two-way translation. It is OK to speak in Old Testament rhetoric provided that in due course you translate meaning to non-believers or outsiders. If a religious argument uses a parable, according to Rawls, the individual advancing the argument must translate it into the language of socio-economic rights. In considering Rawls’ position, the question arises; should the burden of translation be placed on the speaker or ought it to be a cooperative task? I argue that it ought to be a cooperative task. It is not appropriate and is uncivil for seculars to strain not to understand. If seculars turn the ‘deaf ear’ to religious argument, they can hardly complain about the incivility of the speaker.
Some claim that a sense of implicit theocracy is embedded into religious argument. Before I begin to consider this notion of implicit theocracy, I shall consider two types of authority. First, theoretical authority: Paul Krugman is a renown economist. Owing to his educational background, experience, and academic work, Krugman’s ideas on economics are considered to be authoritative, particularly in comparison to one who studies law or medicine. Next to theoretical authority is practical authority. An example of practical authority is a police officer, a judge, or a legislator. In other words, one who exercises power and judgment over another. The concern with implicit theocracy in religious intervention is a concern about religion acting as a practical authority; that is, church leaders ruling society. If abortion is illegal because the Pope has denounced it, this is an act of practical authority. An authoritative figure, and in this case religious authoritative figure, legalizes or illegalizes an action solely on the premise that he or she says so. Most religions, however, make arguments such as: abortion is wrong or immoral, not because the Pope said so. Just as Paul Krugman is considered to be a theoretical authority on the financial crisis, there is certainly the possibility of there being an expert (not a ruler) on ethics or deep values. It would be dishonest and frankly silly to assert that any authority on ethics acts as a ruler which imposes values rather than acting as an intellectual guide to help one reach one’s own conclusions. In short, what is the difference between Paul Krugman as an expert and an expert in religion or ethics? Absolutely nothing.
Some accuse religious intervention and argumentation of assuming an implicit authority in biblical reference. Biblical reference, however, is nothing more than theoretical claim, similar to references to Krugman’s published works. Very rarely do Christians draw from the Bible to support policy arguments. Where in the Bible does it speak specifically to abortion or torture? Instead, religious arguments apply the principles or premises found in the Bible to a policy.
A policy debate on secular grounds respects and allows for mutual intelligibility; that is, everyone has the capacity (namely rationality) to understand the presented argument(s). Consider the following statement: “torture of God’s children is immoral. We ought to treat all as Jesus would.” Why would one make such a claim in a policy debate? There are multiple explanations. First, to persuade others to join a particular religion. Second, to persuade others of the seriousness of the issue of torture. Third, to explain why he or she believes this statement to be true. Fourth, to rally his or her own religious community. Fifth, to awaken his or her own community to the issue of (as in the given example) torture. If there may be multiple explanations behind this religious argument, one may ask; is engagement of non-believers and Christians necessarily a dialogue of death? Let us now consider two philosophical misconceptions as it relates to mutual intelligibility and the question posed above. The first misconception is: mutual understanding is an all or nothing business. A non-believer both completely understands and identifies with a religious argument or not. The second misconception is: communication is only possible between persons who share a common framework of concepts.
Is speaking on religious grounds to non-believers impossible and therefore uncivil? Just because only a few people are willing to step outside their familiar mind-set and seriously consider the ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ does not mean the thoughtful demand for understanding religious argument is uncivil. We cannot engage with every issue or everyone. Time does not permit. But just because one decides not to engage with religious argument and instead chooses to engage with Krugman or any other theoretical authority does not mean that the religious argument advanced is uncivil.
John Rawls spoke of a two-way translation. It is OK to speak in Old Testament rhetoric provided that in due course you translate meaning to non-believers or outsiders. If a religious argument uses a parable, according to Rawls, the individual advancing the argument must translate it into the language of socio-economic rights. In considering Rawls’ position, the question arises; should the burden of translation be placed on the speaker or ought it to be a cooperative task? I argue that it ought to be a cooperative task. It is not appropriate and is uncivil for seculars to strain not to understand. If seculars turn the ‘deaf ear’ to religious argument, they can hardly complain about the incivility of the speaker.
Friday, February 25, 2011
What Do We Mean By the Revolution?
Former U.S. President, John Adams, defined 'revolution' in the following way: "What do We Mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected from 1760-1775, in the course of fifteen Years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."
Friday, January 21, 2011
Pragmatism
I recently finished 'Reading Obama'; an intellectual biography by James Kloppenberg of Harvard. Kloppenberg traces the political thought of Barack Obama to its origin(s). From Indonesia and Occidental to Harvard Law School, the author scruntinizes every word delivered in a speech, the articles written by Obama's professors, and the required texts during his university formatitve years. In undertaking this tidious task, a particular political philosophy emerges; that is, pragmatism.
Pragmatism is a philosophy concerned with progress. Progress is to be achieved through community involvement, careful deliberation, and a mindset open to change and adaptation. Pragmatism is closely related to historicism; the idea that culture and values continually change and adapt to a given period of time. Pragmatism invites a trial-by-error method; constant correction only to improve or progress as a society.
For a Christian, pragmatism may appear problematic. That is, how is one to reconcile pragmatism with a type of absolutism or universalism advanced in Christian theology. I shall attempt to demonstrate how pragmatism and religious absolultism can coexist. First, pragmatism as described and adopted by Obama merely pertains to politics. I can believe God's love to be an unconditional, absolute truth, while at the same time subscribe to a pragmatist approach with public policy. Second, the doctrine that God is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever' is oftentimes misinterpreted. Christians contend the principles remains the same. This is true. Yet, church policy or structure is subject to change. In no way is a change in church policy akin to a change in principle. The Christian faith also believes in revelation. The very meaning of revelation suggests change or adaptation. A church's position on abortion, marriage, or any other policy matter is not necessarily absolute. Third, in some instances religious and political spheres collide. It becomes convenient for Christians to cling to what they know to be absolute truths, and seek to inculcate such truths or values into society. Insofar as these values are introduced and implemented democratically, there is no objection. Still, it is imperative for Christians to consider the doctrine of personal agency; that is, for individuals to freely choose the good and the bad.
The degree to which a society ought to allow opposition or immorality is difficult to locate. While a society takes an interest in preserving a moral ecology, where is the balance between advancing a moral agenda and allowing individuals to choose an immoral lifestyle? Is there a moral right to do wrong?
Pragmatism is a philosophy concerned with progress. Progress is to be achieved through community involvement, careful deliberation, and a mindset open to change and adaptation. Pragmatism is closely related to historicism; the idea that culture and values continually change and adapt to a given period of time. Pragmatism invites a trial-by-error method; constant correction only to improve or progress as a society.
For a Christian, pragmatism may appear problematic. That is, how is one to reconcile pragmatism with a type of absolutism or universalism advanced in Christian theology. I shall attempt to demonstrate how pragmatism and religious absolultism can coexist. First, pragmatism as described and adopted by Obama merely pertains to politics. I can believe God's love to be an unconditional, absolute truth, while at the same time subscribe to a pragmatist approach with public policy. Second, the doctrine that God is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever' is oftentimes misinterpreted. Christians contend the principles remains the same. This is true. Yet, church policy or structure is subject to change. In no way is a change in church policy akin to a change in principle. The Christian faith also believes in revelation. The very meaning of revelation suggests change or adaptation. A church's position on abortion, marriage, or any other policy matter is not necessarily absolute. Third, in some instances religious and political spheres collide. It becomes convenient for Christians to cling to what they know to be absolute truths, and seek to inculcate such truths or values into society. Insofar as these values are introduced and implemented democratically, there is no objection. Still, it is imperative for Christians to consider the doctrine of personal agency; that is, for individuals to freely choose the good and the bad.
The degree to which a society ought to allow opposition or immorality is difficult to locate. While a society takes an interest in preserving a moral ecology, where is the balance between advancing a moral agenda and allowing individuals to choose an immoral lifestyle? Is there a moral right to do wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)