If you are in favor of making the United States less safe, please raise your hand. If you believe that the American president should have the power to do anything he/she deems necessary to keep this country safe with no accountability, please raise your hand. It is difficult to debate serious issues if supposedly credible people are hammering away at issues that don't exist. Yet former vice-president Dick Cheney insisted on Friday that there is no middle ground on this debate. I would contend that we are all somewhere in between the two extremes stated at the outset of this paragraph. Putting aside for the moment that the vice-president has self serving interests in continuing this debate, if he must do so let him at least start with the premise that we are all Americans and we all have the best interests of our country at heart.
There is no doubt that appealing to our fears is one of the easiest arguments to make. After all, it is better to be safe than sorry. If we put all Japanese into internment camps they can't do us any harm. Lets lock up all the criminals and throw away the key. Yet our president reminds us that we as a people are more than the sum of our fears. We also need to remind ourselves that when we take away rights from our fellow human beings we are taking away our own rights as well. If some individuals can be denied due process, then you and I can also be denied due process.
The issue here is not to write another column bashing Republicans. For me it is Democrats that I am having a lot of trouble with on this issue. Republicans are doing exactly what you would expect them to do, and perhaps even what they should be doing. They have claimed successfully for a number of years now to be the party of National Security. Their strategy has been to scare the American people into continuing to put them back into office, and it has too often been a successful strategy.
This Republican strategy has in fact been so successful that it has not only scared the American people but Democrats as well. Think back to the build up to the Iraq war and how almost no voices were raised against very questionable actions that were leading us into that war. What is the point of a two party system if the party that should be standing against an imprudent rush to war is rushing right along with the Republicans? Is it possible that after only four months into a new administration Democrats have again lost their nerve?
Republicans say not to release terrorists onto American soil and no one challenges them on this. Who, besides the president, is trying to make clear that there has never been any intention of releasing terrorists onto American soil? Who is pointing out that we have numerous terrorists in our prisons as we speak and that has not been a problem? Who has noted that the decision to close the detention center at Guantanomo Bay Cuba, was the result of a promise made during a hard fought campaign that was won? This promise requires that something be done with the prisoners currently there. Has anyone mentioned that the Bush administration released over 500 prisoners from Gitmo prior to Obama becoming president? On the other hand is it possible that the courageous senate just voted 90 to 6 to prohibit any terrorists from being released onto American soil.
Such bravery should not go unnoticed. Of course Senators are worried about their jobs. But what it also says loud and clear is that these Democratic Senators believe the American people are not smart enough to understand the fear tactics that are being used. The senators also do not believe that they are smart enough to explain to their constituents in a way they will understand, that if a terrorist is placed in a super max prison in their state it will not make the citizenry any less safe. Remember this was a party that was four square behind the closing of Guantanamo until the Republicans scared them out of their convictions.
On the other side of the party you have the left wing that is busy attacking the president for not having already convicted and placed behind bars Dick Cheney and the former president. Organizations are out there nit-picking everything from the release of documents to gays in the military. May I remind you that one of the big criticisms of this president has been that he is trying to do too much. The Republicans are marching in lock step on everything from judicial appointments to economic recovery policies. Wouldn't it make sense for like minded people on our side of the aisle to come together and support this president so that as much as possible of his progressive agenda can become law. If we do that we might just have four more years to tackle some of these other issues that are so near and dear to the hearts of many in our party. In the meantime, lets wake up and quit cowering in the corner when Dick Cheney and other Republicans hammer away with positions that are not rational and appeal only to our worst selves.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Earning An Honorary Degree
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for receiving an honorary law degree on Sunday from the University of Notre Dame. I don't think anyone can argue that he didn't earn this degree. The controversy and level of protest leading up to the conferral of the degree did not make this an easy event. The cries to rescind the invitation to speak were loud, although every poll I've seen indicated that most people, including Catholics approved of the President speaking at Notre Dame. The President himself commented that it was not so easy to get these honorary degrees, referring to the fact that he was not given one by Arizona State University where he had spoken earlier. Who knew that an honorary degree could be so difficult to receive?
I have already written about this controversy earlier in a blog dated March30, 2009. Yet I felt compelled to comment again specifically to suggest that one thing that is too often missing from this debate is respect. The reason that even as a believing Catholic I find much of the pro-life movement so difficult to accept is its lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with it. The President talks about common ground and not demonizing the other side. Yet many activists in the right to life movement can't get beyond the notion that because abortion is wrong, those who don't agree with us are bad people. The fact that a President Obama has a closer position to Catholic teaching on far more issues than George Bush means nothing, because no issue exists other than abortion.
Common ground is a difficult concept, because abortion is considered intrinsically evil and anyone who doesn't see that is guilty of bad faith. Yet why is it that so many people do not see it? The Church says it bases its moral position on abortion on natural law. This sounds good, but natural law represents only one philosophical position which is not seen in the same way by a lot of other good people. President Obama and others are being held to an understanding of natural law which they don't adhere to. The fact is people of good will do differ on the morality of abortion and that makes a difference in a pluralistic society.
Finally, the morality of abortion is not the major issue here. The issue is about the role of government in imposing morality as understood by some religious and other groups on all of its citizens. Most of this debate boils down to people in the right to life movement saying abortion is wrong and the government should outlaw it. On the other side, those who are called pro choice are saying that they do not believe it is up to the government to mandate the abortion position. In this country it is inappropriate to make laws based on the position of a religious group. When some Church leaders want to go even further and deny communion to Catholic politicians for not adopting the Church's political agenda they are attempting to force politicians to accept that political agenda, not their religious teaching on abortion.
Ultimately, the abortion debate is not about abortion. The latest Gallup poll suggests that 51% of Americans now call themselves pro-life. What the poll doesn't tell you, is what do people mean by pro-life. Perhaps they mean that they don't think abortion is a good thing. They would like to see fewer and fewer abortions. They would like to see less and less need for abortion, by addressing poverty and other conditions that might contribute to abortion. I believe this is the position of President Obama as I understand it.
The truth is no one is really pro abortion. If mutual respect could be achieved on both sides of the debate meaningful compromises could be reached on issues such as late term abortions and the viability of the fetus outside the womb, based on current science. A law banning late term abortions, for example, could have been reached a number of years ago that would have banned nearly all late term abortions. Yet sometimes it seems there may be a greater desire to maintain the issue rather than to reduce abortions. A willingness to insert a clause that would allow protecting the health of the mother in a late term abortion could have sealed the deal.
The principal argument left for debate is whether or not government should be in the business of making the abortion decision for its citizens. I repeat, that is not a decision the Church can make, at least not in this country. It is a decision that belongs in the political sphere. The religious community should stick to moral persuasion in making its case. In every instance, it should be done by recognizing the legitimacy of differing points of view, and treating all debate participants with respect. Maybe we should all pray that President Obana, even after his ordeal at Notre Dame, may be able to provide the leadership that can actually lead to some common ground on this contentious issue.
I have already written about this controversy earlier in a blog dated March30, 2009. Yet I felt compelled to comment again specifically to suggest that one thing that is too often missing from this debate is respect. The reason that even as a believing Catholic I find much of the pro-life movement so difficult to accept is its lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with it. The President talks about common ground and not demonizing the other side. Yet many activists in the right to life movement can't get beyond the notion that because abortion is wrong, those who don't agree with us are bad people. The fact that a President Obama has a closer position to Catholic teaching on far more issues than George Bush means nothing, because no issue exists other than abortion.
Common ground is a difficult concept, because abortion is considered intrinsically evil and anyone who doesn't see that is guilty of bad faith. Yet why is it that so many people do not see it? The Church says it bases its moral position on abortion on natural law. This sounds good, but natural law represents only one philosophical position which is not seen in the same way by a lot of other good people. President Obama and others are being held to an understanding of natural law which they don't adhere to. The fact is people of good will do differ on the morality of abortion and that makes a difference in a pluralistic society.
Finally, the morality of abortion is not the major issue here. The issue is about the role of government in imposing morality as understood by some religious and other groups on all of its citizens. Most of this debate boils down to people in the right to life movement saying abortion is wrong and the government should outlaw it. On the other side, those who are called pro choice are saying that they do not believe it is up to the government to mandate the abortion position. In this country it is inappropriate to make laws based on the position of a religious group. When some Church leaders want to go even further and deny communion to Catholic politicians for not adopting the Church's political agenda they are attempting to force politicians to accept that political agenda, not their religious teaching on abortion.
Ultimately, the abortion debate is not about abortion. The latest Gallup poll suggests that 51% of Americans now call themselves pro-life. What the poll doesn't tell you, is what do people mean by pro-life. Perhaps they mean that they don't think abortion is a good thing. They would like to see fewer and fewer abortions. They would like to see less and less need for abortion, by addressing poverty and other conditions that might contribute to abortion. I believe this is the position of President Obama as I understand it.
The truth is no one is really pro abortion. If mutual respect could be achieved on both sides of the debate meaningful compromises could be reached on issues such as late term abortions and the viability of the fetus outside the womb, based on current science. A law banning late term abortions, for example, could have been reached a number of years ago that would have banned nearly all late term abortions. Yet sometimes it seems there may be a greater desire to maintain the issue rather than to reduce abortions. A willingness to insert a clause that would allow protecting the health of the mother in a late term abortion could have sealed the deal.
The principal argument left for debate is whether or not government should be in the business of making the abortion decision for its citizens. I repeat, that is not a decision the Church can make, at least not in this country. It is a decision that belongs in the political sphere. The religious community should stick to moral persuasion in making its case. In every instance, it should be done by recognizing the legitimacy of differing points of view, and treating all debate participants with respect. Maybe we should all pray that President Obana, even after his ordeal at Notre Dame, may be able to provide the leadership that can actually lead to some common ground on this contentious issue.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Empathy On the Supreme Court
President Barack Obama has listed empathy as a major characteristic he's looking for in the selection of a new supreme court justice. The pending vacancy is a result of the looming retirement of Justice David Souter. Well, it's clear that Republican politicians don't believe in empathy. Of course, there is no question that what is needed is a strict constructionist. Besides, justice is blind and we are a country of laws so one's personal feelings play no role in court decisions.
Still, I wonder why many of these same politicians are often very much in favor of advocating for victim's rights. Why is it that a family member of a murder victim, for example, must be given a right to speak to the jury? Their feelings have absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but they must be given the opportunity to sway the jury. The actual evidence against the defendant may be somewhat weak, but the gravity of the crime itself argues for conviction. We are asked to engender empathy for the victim and his/her family. Could this be why a number of cases of wrongful convictions are now being discovered through DNA evidence? Is there perhaps a rush to judgement in some of these cases?
I am not a constitutional lawyer, although, I believe it has been mentioned that the president is not only a constitutional lawyer, but has actually taught the subject. How can he be so misguided as to believe that empathy might be important? My own sense is that the reality is, it is impossible to divorce one's feelings and beliefs from how one administers justice. Those who believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman would have difficulty seeing any justice in granting rights for same sex marriage. Perhaps what Republicans are really afraid of is that an empathetic justice might actually have feelings about poor people and those discriminated against or oppressed. Would Republicans be as concerned about a justice who was empathetic to large corporations, to those who didn't want to pay taxes, or to groups who opposed gay rights or abortion rights? Perhaps empathy is in the eye of the beholder. Yet, it does make a good Republican talking point to rail against empathy.
The difficulty I have is that I tend to see a relationship between legalistic approaches on the court and legalistic or fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. It seems to me that in the legal or the religious framework the purist tends to believe that the issues are more clear cut than they actually are. The strict constructionist or the believer in a literal interpretation of the scriptures often eliminate common sense understandings from their deliberations. Yet in spite of their rigidity they sometimes operate with selective memory. A fundamentalist will point to a passage that says homosexuality is wrong and end the discussion, yet the fact that Jesus clearly tells us to turn the other cheek may be seen as an ideal but not to be considered literally. In the same way a strict constructionist might say that all powers are reserved to the states if not enumerated in the constitution, but yet have no problem interfering in a personal decision such as in the Terri Schiavo case. Justice Scalia may see no right to privacy in the constitution, yet every American believes he/she has a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That seems to touch on the issue of privacy.
Clearly there are many difficult challenges facing legal scholars today, and no one would suggest that someone learned in the law is not critical for today's court. I must confess, however, that someone who is inflexible, who has had little or no experience dealing with people on a day to day basis, and who lacks empathy for the challenges ordinary Americans face seems pretty scary to me. As a Catholic, I know my church says that abortion is wrong even when the life of the Mother is in danger. If my wife's life is in danger however, I don't want a canon lawyer giving me abstract arguments about what I must do, I want a pastor, i.e. someone with empathy.
Still, I wonder why many of these same politicians are often very much in favor of advocating for victim's rights. Why is it that a family member of a murder victim, for example, must be given a right to speak to the jury? Their feelings have absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but they must be given the opportunity to sway the jury. The actual evidence against the defendant may be somewhat weak, but the gravity of the crime itself argues for conviction. We are asked to engender empathy for the victim and his/her family. Could this be why a number of cases of wrongful convictions are now being discovered through DNA evidence? Is there perhaps a rush to judgement in some of these cases?
I am not a constitutional lawyer, although, I believe it has been mentioned that the president is not only a constitutional lawyer, but has actually taught the subject. How can he be so misguided as to believe that empathy might be important? My own sense is that the reality is, it is impossible to divorce one's feelings and beliefs from how one administers justice. Those who believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman would have difficulty seeing any justice in granting rights for same sex marriage. Perhaps what Republicans are really afraid of is that an empathetic justice might actually have feelings about poor people and those discriminated against or oppressed. Would Republicans be as concerned about a justice who was empathetic to large corporations, to those who didn't want to pay taxes, or to groups who opposed gay rights or abortion rights? Perhaps empathy is in the eye of the beholder. Yet, it does make a good Republican talking point to rail against empathy.
The difficulty I have is that I tend to see a relationship between legalistic approaches on the court and legalistic or fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. It seems to me that in the legal or the religious framework the purist tends to believe that the issues are more clear cut than they actually are. The strict constructionist or the believer in a literal interpretation of the scriptures often eliminate common sense understandings from their deliberations. Yet in spite of their rigidity they sometimes operate with selective memory. A fundamentalist will point to a passage that says homosexuality is wrong and end the discussion, yet the fact that Jesus clearly tells us to turn the other cheek may be seen as an ideal but not to be considered literally. In the same way a strict constructionist might say that all powers are reserved to the states if not enumerated in the constitution, but yet have no problem interfering in a personal decision such as in the Terri Schiavo case. Justice Scalia may see no right to privacy in the constitution, yet every American believes he/she has a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That seems to touch on the issue of privacy.
Clearly there are many difficult challenges facing legal scholars today, and no one would suggest that someone learned in the law is not critical for today's court. I must confess, however, that someone who is inflexible, who has had little or no experience dealing with people on a day to day basis, and who lacks empathy for the challenges ordinary Americans face seems pretty scary to me. As a Catholic, I know my church says that abortion is wrong even when the life of the Mother is in danger. If my wife's life is in danger however, I don't want a canon lawyer giving me abstract arguments about what I must do, I want a pastor, i.e. someone with empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
