tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post1605869999354410632..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: The Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage: New Book from ColumbiaPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-80717532101927221862010-11-24T22:02:40.655-07:002010-11-24T22:02:40.655-07:00There is a rising tide in American jurisprudence t...There is a rising tide in American jurisprudence that religious sentiment is inherently irrational, and has no place in our polity. <br /><br />There was a very bizarre episode in 1993, <i>Romer v. Evans</i>, where [Catholic] "natural law-yers" Robert George and John Finnis felt obliged to argue via Plato that opposition to SSM wasn't mere Judeo-Christian superstition, but had support in reason as well. [Surely Plato is a reasonable man! Further, "natural law" theory per Aquinas through to James Wilson has always maintained that scripture and the "natural law" cannot be in conflict.]<br /><br />For those interested, an account is here<br /><br />http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9609/stand.html<br /><br />told by a fella who, although his sentiments happen to be in sympathy with SSM, is an honest man. Martha Nussbaum clearly lost, perhaps even guilty of scholarly malfeasance.<br /><br />[Although her side won the case. As it turned out, the court ignored this scholarly sideshow, and ruled against George's and Finnis's side...]<br /><br /><i>Nussbaum's testimony, George later wrote, "amounted to a series of misrepresentations, distortions, and deceptions" involving material that lay within her area of expertise.<br /><br />Even without Finnis's and George's accusations, Romer v. Evans would have been an unusual trial. Because some of the legal strategies pursued by both sides depended on testimony offered by classical scholars, natural law theorists, and specialists in ancient philosophy, the case became a lightning rod for discussion about the relevance of the humanities to "real" life--and, by implication, about the motives and methods of public intellectuals. Not all of this discussion was especially respectful of the life of the mind. There were those--among them writers at The New Republic and The New Yorker--who found something comic in the sight of academic superstars earnestly debating Plato's views on anal intercourse in a Denver, Colorado, courtroom a good 2,300 years after Plato himself presumably rejoined the realm of pure Ideas.<br /><br />But the nature of Finnis's and George's allegations against Nussbaum did raise a serious question, one closer perhaps to the concerns of tragedy than those of comedy: Must scholars sacrifice their intellectual standards when they enter the public arena?</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-57126054243290879182010-11-23T18:09:47.738-07:002010-11-23T18:09:47.738-07:00Oh, and I forgot to mention that Viefhues-Bailey&#...Oh, and I forgot to mention that Viefhues-Bailey's connection of ssm opposition to political power plays is also highly predictable. When political theorists think that power quests are at the heart of everything, it seems to me that they're the ones who can't see beyond the political.AMBurgessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-39970325850010195602010-11-23T18:03:35.096-07:002010-11-23T18:03:35.096-07:00huh? I don't think I get it. I guess I'l...huh? I don't think I get it. I guess I'll have to read the book. <br /><br />Why do we have to come up with some concealed or even unconscious motive for understanding a political or religious position? This seems disrespectful and actually quite counter to mutual understanding. Maybe a lot of conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because that's simply what their religious tradition teaches. And maybe a lot of progressives support it because their social justice tradition informs that perspective. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt and respect their particular line of reasoning rather than subject their views to psychoanalysis. I really hope this book amounts to more than pseudo-scientific Freudian superstitions.<br /><br />And why did the author focus on FotF for understanding the conservative position? This seems very cliched to me. Not to mention tedious and predictable.AMBurgessnoreply@blogger.com