07.19.08
Posted in Is Darwinism a Religion?-Discussion, Evolution Is A Theory - Not A Dogma at 6:50 am by Brian Schuettler
Phil Elias at Mercator : http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/monkeying_about_with_evolution/
I sometimes wonder goes through the mind of an American child faced with an afternoon of science classes. Does the prospect of an evolution discussion create a simmering sense of expectation, a trembling hope that something special is about to happen? Does the explosiveness of the topic and its contested history charge the classroom with electric excitement?
I doubt it. But there is no shortage of angst amongst American adults over just what goes on in those generally soporific science classes. Right now, 83 years on from the Scopes trial, the air is heavy in sleepy Louisiana, where the state legislature has ratified a bill to: “allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment… that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning…”
The most important point here, according to the widely-read magazine New Scientist, is that teachers in Louisiana can present topics related to evolution as scientifically questionable. Exasperated editors of science journals continue to fret over the fact that 45 percent of Americans ascribe to Young Earth Creationism, that is, that the Bible account of creation should be taken literally and that the intervening millennia could be counted on one’s fingers.
Are these evolutionary recusants merely religious fanatics either unwilling or unable to follow a relatively simple train of evidence? Perhaps some of them are. But the history of the popular debate on evolution demands a more nuanced consideration. The Scopes Monkey Trial is a case in point. This has become a touchstone for debate over evolution in the US ever since 1925. John Scopes was a teacher in Tennessee who defied a state law which banned evolution in the classroom. He was found guilty in a trial which riveted America and was even made into a classic film, Inherit the Wind.
At the centre of the controversy was the 1914 textbook which Scopes used, Civic Biology. The case for the prosecution was derided at the time (and ever since) as “theological bilge” from backwoods buffoons, partly because the defense team succeeded in turning the event into a trial of the historical and scientific value of the Bible. Time magazine described it as “the fantastic cross between a circus and a holy war”. But what about the book itself? Everyone remembers the “degraded nonsense which country preachers are ramming and hammering into yokel skulls” (to quote the dyspeptic H.L. Mencken), but what about Civic Biology? What were its views on evolution? From a contemporary perspective, they, too, were bilge. Take for instance the author’s comments on race:
At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
The author offers forceful recommendations regarding the problem of criminality:
Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The “Jukes” family is a notorious example…. In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter of dollars… If such people were lower animals; we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.
He is clear on the limits of reproductive choice:
When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, that dread white plague which is still responsible for almost one seventh of all deaths, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.
And he makes quite explicit the link between his views and those of evolutionary science:
If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part.
Objections, anyone?
One reason for the failure of evolution education at the popular level is that both sides have depicted evolution as inextricably linked to scientific materialism (clearly false), and one side of the debate has taken ethical anti-humanism to follow from scientific materialism (quite a sound conclusion). Scientific materialism may have expunged the eugenics movement from its pamphlets and websites, but it advocates eugenics under a new names like abortion, sex selection, genetic screening, and euthanasia. Note that both incarnations of the eugenics movement lay claim to a paradoxical ideal of compassion: we must be anti-human for the sake of humanity.
Materialists have claimed the discovery that man is 60 percent fruit fly, genetically speaking, is the basis for a radical new equality. What it really means, working from their philosophy, is the foundation for a radical new inequality. Souls are always equal, but genes are never. If the foundation for our deepest understanding of the human person is genetics, then the conclusions of Civic Biology, and the most radical of modern sociobiologists, are valid. And as long as evolutionary theory carries the baggage of a materialistic worldview imposed by its chief proponents, it will be opposed by many on the grounds of humanistic intuition independent of theological concerns.
Phil Elias studies Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
Permalink
Posted in Daily Mass Readings, Got Grace? at 6:20 am by Brian Schuettler
Mi 2:1-5
Woe to those who plan iniquity,
and work out evil on their couches;
In the morning light they accomplish it
when it lies within their power.
They covet fields, and seize them;
houses, and they take them;
They cheat an owner of his house,
a man of his inheritance.
Therefore thus says the LORD:
Behold, I am planning against this race an evil
from which you shall not withdraw your necks;
Nor shall you walk with head high,
for it will be a time of evil.
On that day a satire shall be sung over you,
and there shall be a plaintive chant:
“Our ruin is complete,
our fields are portioned out among our captors,
The fields of my people are measured out,
and no one can get them back!”
Thus you shall have no one
to mark out boundaries by lot
in the assembly of the LORD.
Ps 10:1-2, 3-4, 7-8, 14
R. (12b) Do not forget the poor, O Lord!
Why, O LORD, do you stand aloof?
Why hide in times of distress?
Proudly the wicked harass the afflicted,
who are caught in the devices the wicked have contrived.
R. Do not forget the poor, O Lord!
For the wicked man glories in his greed,
and the covetous blasphemes, sets the LORD at nought.
The wicked man boasts, “He will not avenge it”;
“There is no God,” sums up his thoughts.
R. Do not forget the poor, O Lord!
His mouth is full of cursing, guile and deceit;
under his tongue are mischief and iniquity.
He lurks in ambush near the villages;
in hiding he murders the innocent;
his eyes spy upon the unfortunate.
R. Do not forget the poor, O Lord!
You do see, for you behold misery and sorrow,
taking them in your hands.
On you the unfortunate man depends;
of the fatherless you are the helper.
R. Do not forget the poor, O Lord!
Mt 12:14-21
The Pharisees went out and took counsel against Jesus
to put him to death.
When Jesus realized this, he withdrew from that place.
Many people followed him, and he cured them all,
but he warned them not to make him known.
This was to fulfill what had been spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved in whom I delight;
I shall place my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
He will not contend or cry out,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed he will not break,
a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory.
And in his name the Gentiles will hope.
Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, Copyright © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; Psalm refrain © 1968, 1981, 1997, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Commentary:
Today’s readings refer to evils and misfortune. The prophet Micah rails against land fraud, and “those who plan iniquity” and cheat people out of the land allotted to their ancestors. And today we have our own troubles concerning land and property and mortgages. Greed and fraud distort our use of the world’s natural resources – especially oil and water. Today’s Psalm sings about bad people and their victims, the “afflicted … caught in the devices the wicked have contrived.” Today, too, we suffer because of those without conscience or compunction, whose mouths are “full of cursing, guile and deceit .. mischief and iniquity.” .”
The Gospel also opens with wickedness. Jesus has just cured a man with a withered hand, and now the Pharisees, supposedly the upright leaders of society, are considering how “to put him to death.” Moving on, he heals people who follow him, but he tries to avoid publicity. Matthew cites the words of another Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, who proclaimed that God’s chosen servant “brings justice to victory.”In recent days I’ve experienced two kinds of misfortune. First the Omaha area suffered a major storm of high velocity winds (over 90 mph), rain and hail, causing at least two deaths, widespread damage to trees, homes, cars and gardens, and for some, many days of no electricity. But with the bad results of natural forces, we also saw charity, courtesy and patience – and neighbors helping neighbors.
Then came the afternoon when we returned home to find our back door broken and many items stolen from our house. The worst losses belonged to a colleague: a laptop computer and a paper file of business reports that had been brought to us for delivery the next day to our campus. The laptop held notes from several weeks of research abroad and the draft of a professional essay – files not backed up anywhere. We felt hurt by the damage to our house and the loss of our own possessions, but the blow to our colleague, who had entrusted his work to us, was most painful, most unjust. Where’s Jesus now, the one who “brings justice to victory”?
“Do not forget the poor, O Lord,” sings today’s Psalm refrain. Victimized by evildoers, collectively or individually, we feel “poor” even though we’re not literally so. Having our door broken and losing family heirlooms makes us feel poor; getting the door fixed and replacing necessary items makes us actually somewhat poorer. Our friend’s loss of both property and ideas means also a loss of time and perhaps opportunity – things far more valuable than can be tallied on a police report.
In times of misfortune, in the face of genuine evil, our faith and the Scriptures tell us: the Lord is with us. Jesus Christ moves among us and heals. This, our faith, is not a dream of magic to prevent or revenge burglaries and other crimes, or even to hold back storms or floods – or death. The Scriptures and our faith in Christ offer no false promise against the bad things that do happen to good people. Any one of us can be the victim of crime, or suffer some other bad thing – the traffic accident, the house fire, the miscarriage.
Yet I also have felt the healing power of the Risen Christ in the sympathy of people who heard about the burglary in the days following. I pray that my colleague will be supported by both his Christian faith and the concern and kindness of good people as he labors to replace the research and writing stolen from him in my home.
And as today’s readings remind us, as Matthew and Isaiah have said, in the name of Jesus Christ we will have – no, not insulation from the world’s evils – instead, we have HOPE.
Permalink
07.18.08
Posted in History and Eschatology at 11:36 am by Brian Schuettler
The Millennium and the Roman Catholic Church
By John J. Reilly
In “The Devil’s Dictionary,” that indispensable treasury of acidic wisdom, Ambrose Bierce defined the Millennium as “The period of a thousand years when the lid is to be screwed down with all the reformers on the under side.” This terse formulation is actually not much different from the term’s ordinary significance in popular American apocalyptic (see Rev. 20:1-3). In that context, the term refers to a future paradisiacal stage of history, when such constants of human experience as war, death and poverty will no longer exist. Although the earth will continue to exist in something like its familiar form, this future age will be discontinuous from secular history. It will be inaugurated by a period of natural and social disasters, culminating in the Second Coming of Christ. The biblical verse on which this view is primarily based is Rev. 20:4, which says in part:
“And I saw thrones, and men sat upon them and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the word of God, and who did not worship the beast or his image, and did not accept his mark upon their heads or upon their hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years…”
A good argument can be made that this view of the final stage of history was also that of primitive Christianity. Certainly it was the view of St. Irenaeus of the second century, who likened the Millennium to the Sabbath of a historical “week” that consisted of “days” of a thousand years each. This view is often called “millenarian,” and many observers have noted that it is an essentially revolutionary way of viewing history. From Montanus in second century Phrygia to David Koresh in twentieth century Texas, millenarians have tended to form sects that are separatist, often antinomian and sometimes violently insurgent. As a general matter, of course, persons and groups with millenarian beliefs live undramatic lives in harmony with their wider societies. However, millenarianism does lend itself to outbreaks of apocalyptic anxiety when historical events chime with one or another of the apocalyptic texts of the Bible. Millenarians are notorious for setting dates for the end of the world and then setting new ones when doomsday fails to materialize.
A point that often escapes American commentators on popular eschatology is that the official theology of the Roman Catholic Church, by far the largest segment of Christianity and the largest denomination even in the United States, is resolutely antimillenarian. The recently-issued “Catechism of the Catholic Church” provides a useful summary of traditional doctrine:
Par. 676 “The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the ‘intrinsically perverse’ political form of secular messianism.”
This section contains a reference to the encyclical “Divini Redemptoris” by Pius XI, which condemned the “false mysticism” of the “counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly.” The school of sociologically-informed Catholic social theory known loosely as “liberation theology” has fallen more and more into official disfavor during the pontificate of John Paul II largely because the Vatican sees it as just this sort of counterfeit, one that comes close to equating leftist politics with the creation of the Kingdom of God. Another problem with liberation theology, ironically, is that it has not proven popular with the poor whom it was intended to serve. Its chief effect so far, in fact, seems to have been to drive millions of Latin Americans into Protestant churches. (For a CIA assessment, see Patrick E. Kennon’s “The Twilight of Democracy,” Doubleday, N.Y., 1995, pp. 196-197.)
Read the essay at : http://www.johnreilly.info/catmil.htm
Permalink
Posted in Daily Mass Readings, Got Grace? at 6:34 am by Brian Schuettler
Is 38:1-6, 21-22, 7-8
When Hezekiah was mortally ill,
the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, came and said to him:
“Thus says the LORD: Put your house in order,
for you are about to die; you shall not recover.”
Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD:
“O LORD, remember how faithfully and wholeheartedly
I conducted myself in your presence,
doing what was pleasing to you!”
And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: “Go, tell Hezekiah:
Thus says the LORD, the God of your father David:
I have heard your prayer and seen your tears.
I will heal you: in three days you shall go up to the LORD’s temple;
I will add fifteen years to your life.
I will rescue you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria;
I will be a shield to this city.”
Isaiah then ordered a poultice of figs to be taken
and applied to the boil, that he might recover.
Then Hezekiah asked,
“What is the sign that I shall go up to the temple of the LORD?”
Isaiah answered:
“This will be the sign for you from the LORD
that he will do what he has promised:
See, I will make the shadow cast by the sun
on the stairway to the terrace of Ahaz
go back the ten steps it has advanced.”
So the sun came back the ten steps it had advanced.
Isaiah 38:10, 11, 12abcd, 16
R. (see 17b) You saved my life, O Lord; I shall not die.
Once I said,
“In the noontime of life I must depart!
To the gates of the nether world I shall be consigned
for the rest of my years.”
R. You saved my life, O Lord; I shall not die.
I said, “I shall see the LORD no more
in the land of the living.
No longer shall I behold my fellow men
among those who dwell in the world.”
R. You saved my life, O Lord; I shall not die.
My dwelling, like a shepherd’s tent,
is struck down and borne away from me;
You have folded up my life, like a weaver
who severs the last thread.
R. You saved my life, O Lord; I shall not die.
Those live whom the LORD protects;
yours is the life of my spirit.
You have given me health and life.
R. You saved my life, O Lord; I shall not die.
Mt 12:1-8
Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath.
His disciples were hungry
and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them.
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him,
“See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.”
He said to the them, “Have you not read what David did
when he and his companions were hungry,
how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering,
which neither he nor his companions
but only the priests could lawfully eat?
Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath
the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath
and are innocent?
I say to you, something greater than the temple is here.
If you knew what this meant, I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
you would not have condemned these innocent men.
For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.”
Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, Copyright © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; Psalm refrain © 1968, 1981, 1997, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Commentary:
Ironically the Pharisees managed to turn the sabbath law of rest, which forbade the bearing of burdens, into a burden. What was their thinking? They felt that the Law was so holy that (as they put it) they needed to “build a hedge (or fence) around it,” so that no one would inadvertently break the Law. This “hedge” was the “traditions of the elders,” a body of oral law later written down by rabbis in the 2nd century, comprising thousands of rules, and later to form the Talmud. The idea was that if you kept the oral law, you couldn’t help but keep the actual Mosaic Law.
What Jesus and his disciples did on that day was quite lawful. The Law said, “If you enter your neighbour’s grain-field, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain” (Deuteronomy 23:25). The Pharisees could not object to that. What they objected to was that it was done on the sabbath. They saw it as ‘work’. The Talmud lists some rules about this. “If someone rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered as sifting; if he rubs the heads of wheat, it is considered threshing; if he cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if he bruises the ears, it is grinding; if he throws them up in his hand, it is winnowing.” The ‘fence around the law’ had been breached in five places! With a little ingenuity you could keep counting: it was also “bearing a burden,” and “preparing a meal”!
When religion becomes a matter of obeying rules, the danger is that the true religious spirit fades from the picture; one’s own righteousness becomes the main focus. Because it is so rational and manageable, law is always in danger of becoming an end in itself. This is what Jesus charged against the Pharisees. “You have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (Mt 23:23), thereby “making void the word of God through your traditions” (Mk 7:13).
This seems to be true everywhere. I once heard a lawyer defending a manifestly unjust decision by a judge: “It’s a court of law,” he said, “not a court of justice.” What is the law for if it is not for justice? What is religious law for if it is not for “justice, mercy, faith?”
http://www.goodnews.ie/news.php?dt=2008-07-18
©2002-2008All images and information, unless acknowledged, are copyright of Dominicans, Ireland. Four Evangelists reproduced with permission: “© The Trustees of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. www.cbl.ie”
Permalink
07.17.08
Posted in Marian Literature, Mystical Theology, Got Grace? at 11:41 am by Brian Schuettler
Regardless of the qualitative nature of the Marian Scripture, very little is comparatively revealed about her life. The mystical tradition highlights and expounds on this life by adding greater clarity and depth. Four mystics, each in a special manner, highlight the life of the Blessed Virgin. These mystics are St. Bridget of Sweden, Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, Ven. Maria de Agreda and Maria Valtorta. Some have had the sanctity of their lives recognized by the Church and others reflect a saintly reputation. The Scriptural events are: the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity, and the Passion of Jesus, with a focus on the time of death and the role of the Blessed Mother. This article will discuss the Scriptural events and then provide a consensus of material from the aforementioned mystical authors which enliven the Scriptural events.
Further, all similarities between the mystics will be identified and any disagreements will be noted and discussed as well. The revelation studied here does not add to the sacred deposit; the sacred deposit is the public revelation of God and it is full and final. The revelation does, however, enrich the experience of the sacred texts. Each mystic reflects a different aspect of the Blessed Virgin’s life in the chosen five events. They highlight portions of each of the same events and relay details that enrich different areas conversely. Through their private revelation these mystics deepen the impact of the Blessed Virgin’s life in the lives of the faithful.
St. Bridget, who was born in 1303 in Sweden, is best known for the fifteen rosary promises (1). Accompanying these promises were revelations of the lives of Jesus and Mary. She was the daughter of a knight and governor (2). Her mother almost died before birth, but she survived and was told that she was saved because of the child in her womb (3). St. Bridget received her first heavenly vision when she was seven. She was offered a “precious crown” by a “beautiful lady” (4). Her father chose a husband for her at age 13. Bridget did not want marriage but out of obedience to God she obeyed her father (5). They lived chastely together for a couple of years as an offering for holy children (6). One of her children was St. Katherine of Sweden (7). After her husband’s death, she received more visions from God. During these visions she received messages from God for people and instructions to found a religious order (8). In addition, she was given a mission from God to bring the Pope from Avignon back to Rome (9).
Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich is best known for the use of her Dolorous Passion of the Christ for the film the Passion of Christ. However, her writings are far more extensive. She was born in 1774 in West Germany (10). In 1803 she became an Augustinian nun (11). Her early years were especially filled with mystical experiences and extraordinary events; these experiences included understanding liturgical Latin the first time she attended Mass (12). During her last years she was very ill and survived by partaking solely in the Eucharist and water (13). She also possessed the stigmata (14). Her visions and works were all recorded by Clemens Bretano, who devoted a great portion of his later life to recording these visions (15). Her revelations were very extensive and covered the entire lives of Jesus, Mary and some of the saints. Her writings have received an imprimatur.
Ven. Maria de Agreda received extensive private revelation of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was a Spanish nun born in 1602 (16). It was recorded that she made a vow of chastity at only eight years old (17). She and her mother entered a Franciscan convent together, where she served for most of her life as Mother Superior (18). She received a dictate in a vision to write on the life of Blessed Mother at the age of 35. Her writings were prohibited for a short period of time (19). However, her writings have now received an approbation. The Mystical City of God was first approved by the local bishop; secondly it was passed by the inquisition of Spain; the third approval came from theologians of all religious bodies: Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, and Jesuits; fourth, the approval of the then highly esteemed universities was given; and finally the approbate of Pope Innocent XI and Pope Benedict XIII was granted for the text (20). Her writings also have an imprimatur.
Lastly, Maria Valtorta, an Italian woman received seven volumes of revelation on the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was born in 1897 in Italy where she was her parents’ only child. Her mother sought to control much of her daughter’s life and many of her actions were met by criticism (21). Her father was meek and docile and did little to counter the actions of his wife (22). Her mother twice terminated love interests, one of whom was her fiancé (23). Later Maria Valtorta was attacked on the street and became bedridden for months (24). She joined Catholic Action because she was seeking to serve the Lord (25). Maria then decided to take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience because she wanted to be a ‘victim for Jesus’ (26). She became ill and was confined to suffer out of love of God. After the perspective deaths of her parents, she completed her autobiography and wrote in different capacities for 10 years (27). During this time she wrote over 15,000 pages (28). Upon her death her right hand, “the pen of the Lord,” appeared brighter and healthier than her left and her knees retorted to a bent position, which was the position in which she wrote (29). Her works received a temporary stay on the prohibited reading list (30).
http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1396&Itemid=40
Permalink
Posted in Culture Wars, 2008 Campaign, Church & State - The Debate, An Informed Mind and Conscience, Romney - Not McCain at 10:20 am by Brian Schuettler
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625042990560111.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
The judiciary is becoming an important election issue. John McCain is warning conservatives that control of today’s finely balanced Supreme Court depends on his election. Unfortunately, his jurisprudence is likely to be anything but conservative.
The idea of a “living Constitution” long has been popular on the political left. Conservatives routinely dismiss such result-oriented justice, denouncing “judicial activism” and proclaiming their fidelity to “original intent.” However, many Republicans, like Mr. McCain, are just as result-oriented as their Democratic opponents. They only disagree over the result desired.
Judge-made rights are wrong because there is no constitutional warrant behind them. The Constitution leaves most decisions up to the normal political process.
However, the Constitution sometimes requires decisions or action by judges – “judicial activism,” if you will – to ensure the country’s fundamental law is followed. Thus, for example, if government improperly restricts free speech – think the McCain-Feingold law’s ban on issue ads – the courts have an obligation to void the law. The same goes for efforts by government to ban firearms ownership, as the Court ruled this term in striking down the District of Columbia gun ban.
Yet even as Republicans support and defend the Second Amendment, they ignore the Constitution when it says that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, and then only in event of an invasion or rebellion. And if a president says we are “at war,” Republicans believe he can ignore laws passed by Congress.
Mr. McCain is a convenient convert to the cause of sound judicial appointments. He has never paid much attention to judicial philosophy, backing both Clinton Supreme Court nominees – Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also participated in the so-called “Gang of 14,” which favored centrist over conservative nominees as part of a compromise between President George W. Bush and Senate Democrats.
What’s more, Republican Court appointments have often turned liberal. Earl Warren, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun were GOP appointees to the high court. So are “liberals” John Paul Stevens and David Souter, as well as centrists Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. There is no reason to believe that a President McCain, once freed from the need to seek conservative support, would support more philosophically sound candidates. Even if he did, he would not likely prevail against a Democratic Senate majority.
Nor is it obvious that Barack Obama would attempt to pack the court with left-wing ideologues. He shocked some of his supporters by endorsing the ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms, and criticizing the recent decision overturning the death penalty for a child rapist. With the three members most likely to leave the Supreme Court in the near future occupying the more liberal side of the bench, the next appointments probably won’t much change the Court’s balance.
But even if a President McCain were to influence the court, it would not likely be in a genuinely conservative direction. His jurisprudence is not conservative.
For instance, most conservatives believe that the First Amendment safeguards political speech. Mr. McCain does not. Indeed, it is the liberal bloc which upheld McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on ads criticizing incumbent politicians, while the conservative members, led by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, forged a more recent majority overturning parts of McCain-Feingold.
In his May 2008 speech on judges at Wake Forest University, Mr. McCain talked about the importance of “the constitutional restraint on power,” but in practice he recognizes no limits on government or executive-branch authority. In fact, if Mr. McCain nominated someone in his own image, the appointee would disagree with not only the doctrine of enumerated powers, which limits the federal government to only those tasks explicitly authorized by the Constitution, but also the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, and even its explicit grant of the law-making power to Congress.
Mr. McCain has endorsed, in action if not rhetoric, the theory of the “unitary executive,” which leaves the president unconstrained by Congress or the courts. Republicans like Mr. McCain believe the president as commander in chief of the military can do almost anything, including deny Americans arrested in America protection of the Constitution and access to the courts.
It is important to choose judicial nominees carefully. But that is no reason for conservatives to vote for Mr. McCain. He has demonstrated no more interest in “conserving” the Constitution, and its principles of limited government and individual liberty, than has Mr. Obama.
The best way to get better judges is to expand candidate choice beyond the Republicans and Democrats. Supporting the political status quo guarantees more jurisprudence based on political convenience, not constitutional principle.
Mr. Barr is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president.
Permalink
Posted in Daily Mass Readings, Got Grace? at 7:17 am by Brian Schuettler
Is 26:7-9, 12, 16-19
The way of the just is smooth;
the path of the just you make level.
Yes, for your way and your judgments, O LORD,
we look to you;
Your name and your title
are the desire of our souls.
My soul yearns for you in the night,
yes, my spirit within me keeps vigil for you;
When your judgment dawns upon the earth,
the world’s inhabitants learn justice.
O LORD, you mete out peace to us,
for it is you who have accomplished all we have done.
O LORD, oppressed by your punishment,
we cried out in anguish under your chastising.
As a woman about to give birth
writhes and cries out in her pains,
so were we in your presence, O LORD.
We conceived and writhed in pain,
giving birth to wind;
Salvation we have not achieved for the earth,
the inhabitants of the world cannot bring it forth.
But your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise;
awake and sing, you who lie in the dust.
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the land of shades gives birth.
Ps 102:13-14ab and 15, 16-18, 19-21
R. (20b) From heaven the Lord looks down on the earth.
You, O LORD, abide forever,
and your name through all generations.
You will arise and have mercy on Zion,
for it is time to pity her.
For her stones are dear to your servants,
and her dust moves them to pity.
R. From heaven the Lord looks down on the earth.
The nations shall revere your name, O LORD,
and all the kings of the earth your glory,
When the LORD has rebuilt Zion
and appeared in his glory;
When he has regarded the prayer of the destitute,
and not despised their prayer.
R. From heaven the Lord looks down on the earth.
Let this be written for the generation to come,
and let his future creatures praise the LORD:
“The LORD looked down from his holy height,
from heaven he beheld the earth,
To hear the groaning of the prisoners,
to release those doomed to die.”
R. From heaven the Lord looks down on the earth.
Mt 11:28-30
Jesus said:
“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened,
and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am meek and humble of heart;
and you will find rest for yourselves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”
Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, Copyright © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; Psalm refrain © 1968, 1981, 1997, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
