1
Atrocity in China
2
Religious Freedom: For Me, For Thee, For a Divided America
3
Christ the King and this Election Season
4
Seeking Civics for Anxious Times
5
Hope for a Catholic Political Party: Never Bleaker, Never Brighter
6
New Documentary Film on How Christians Respond to Persecution
7
A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism? A New Book
8
Meeting With Trump and Clinton on Religious Freedom
9
Contra Modern Wisdom, Christianity Incubated Freedom
10
Where Religion is Trusted for Politics

Atrocity in China

A piece in the Boston Globe today by Jeff Jacoby floored me.   He reports an atrocity in China — the government is killing more than ten thousand  prisoners every year by harvesting their organs while they are alive and then selling the organs.  The story, Jacoby reports, is being aired through two new films.

Here is how he describes that is happening:

The evidence, assembled by human-rights researchers and investigative journalists, added up to something unimaginable: China was killing enormous numbers of imprisoned men and women by strapping them down to operating tables, still conscious, and forcibly extracting their organs — and then delivering those organs to the hospital transplant centers that have become a major source of revenue.

To boot, those being killed are people being persecuted for their religious beliefs:

Chinese officials claim that organs come from violent criminals on death row. But “Human Harvest” makes it clear that most of those killed are peaceful citizens persecuted for their beliefs: Tibetans, Uighurs, Christians — and, above all, practitioners of Falun Gong, a Buddhist-style spiritual movement of peaceful meditation and ethical commitment.

Here is what he says about the two new films:

This week, two extraordinary Canadian films — one a chilling documentary, the other a riveting drama based on its findings — were released for sale on iTunes. Directed by Leon Lee, the films illuminate what may be the most depraved of all systematic human-rights atrocities in the world today: China’s industrial-scale harvesting of vital organs from prisoners of conscience, to be transplanted into patients paying exorbitant fees for a heart, kidney, or liver made available on demand.

The documentary, “Human Harvest,” won the coveted Peabody Award for its exposé of an unspeakable crime against humanity.

And more on the drama:

Hence Lee’s newest movie: a feature-length thriller, “The Bleeding Edge.”

The film stars Anastasia Lin, a gifted Chinese-Canadian actress who also happens to be the reigning Miss World Canada. She plays Chen Jing, a young Falun Gong practitioner who is jailed and brutally tortured for her refusal to “transform.” A simultaneous plot line follows James Branton (played by Jay Clift), a hard-charging tech entrepreneur whose heart collapses while on a business trip to China to close a major deal with the government. Branton receives an emergency transplant that saves his life — and motivates him to find out how a suitable organ could have been located so quickly.

Lin drew international headlines last year when she was forbidden to enter China, where the 2015 Miss World pageant was being held. For Lin, who was born and lived in China until she was 13, beauty pageants are a means of calling attention to human-rights abuses in her native land, and Beijing was intent on denying her a Chinese platform from which to speak.

This deserves attention!

Religious Freedom: For Me, For Thee, For a Divided America

This essay first appeared in the Irish Rover at the University of Notre Dame, December 1, 2016.

Donald Trump’s victory on November 8th has elicited deeper divisions than perhaps any U.S. election result since 1860, when the Civil War loomed.  Furious demonstrations, calls for violence from both sides, and a surge of assaults on minorities ignited by Trump’s campaign rhetoric make clear that if the Republic is going to function civilly as a democracy for the next four years, Americans who are bitterly divided must find a basis on which to live and deliberate together.  No mere truce will do.  We are divided by principles, so only a principle that we can all endorse can help us contest our positions peacefully.

One principle, kneaded into the American founding, long regarded as part of our collective heritage, yet called into question as of late, can help us a great deal: religious freedom.  Religion is far from the only source of our divisions.  Class, race, and the status of immigrants obviously featured prominently in the election.  Religion, however, persisted as a fault line, much to the surprise of analysts who thought its relevance had faded.  At stake in the election were not only religious concerns but the very freedom of Americans to express and practice their religion.

Both left and right rued compromises of this freedom.  Among the minority groups against whom Trump stoked resentment through his skillful demagoguery, Muslims stood out.  Shunning the United States’ heritage, exemplary among Western countries, of integrating Muslims into our common life as citizens and economic actors, an achievement enabled in no small part by our tradition of religious freedom, Trump promised to bar Muslims from entry into the United States and thus expanded Americans’ legitimate worries about terrorism into a fear of all Muslims.  His proposal was a form of discrimination that violated the spirit, if not the strict letter, of religious freedom and instigated acts that violated religious freedom directly.  An FBI report of mid-November showed that hate crimes in the U.S. have surged as of late and most acutely against Muslims.  Among people who did not vote for Trump – like myself – his incitement of such animus was chief among our objections.

Religion and religious freedom, though, were also on the minds of those – like myself – who did not pull the lever for Clinton.  Trump received a record 81% of white evangelical votes and won 56% – 40% among weekly churchgoers.  In Clinton, these voters perceived a commitment to continue the Obama administration’s aggressive secularism.  This perception offers an explanation for why Clinton lost the commanding lead that she enjoyed among Catholics in summer 2016, only to lose to Trump among Catholics, 52-45%, on Election Day.  In the interim, e-mails hacked from the Democratic campaign revealed cynical and condescending plans to divide and conquer Catholics voters, while Trump wrote a letter to Catholics speaking to their concerns about life and freedom that played well in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the other Rust Belt states critical to his victory.

At the core of the Obama Administration’s aggressive secularism have been its sharp curtailments of the religious liberty of Americans in the realms of life, marriage, and sexuality.  Through administrative decrees, judicial appointments, and the pedagogical power of the presidential podium, the administration imposed and inculcated restrictions of the sort that Pope Francis has termed “polite persecution,” implying that they are similar in kind, if not in degree, to far more serious persecution.  Motivated by a secular ideology, they involve the imposition of serious material costs on Christian believers on account of their commitment to traditional Christian teachings. The costs have been borne by merchants, universities, schools, hospitals, charities, campus fellowships, students, public officials, employees, and citizens, who have been variously fired, fined, denied accreditation, evicted from campuses, seen their businesses ruined, and otherwise barred from living out their convictions.

While the mandate of the Health and Human Services Department, challenged by the Little Sisters of the Poor in the U.S. Supreme Court, stands as the most famous of these impositions, many others have been applied at other levels of government and by a wide range of institutions.  Combined, the restrictions amount to the largest curtailment of religious freedom in the history of the Republic, a judgment derived from factoring together the number of these restrictions, their frequency, the number of people to whom they apply, and the scope of affairs that they restrict, including norms of marriage and sexuality held by every society, every religion, until 11:59 pm on the clock of history.

Americans who disregard the religious freedom of other Americans, or of citizens of other countries, are afflicted with amnesia.  They have forgotten that religious freedom is in the First Amendment to our Constitution, and in our heritage.  Religious freedom has enabled religious people who were persecuted elsewhere to find not only refuge but also equality of citizenship in the United States: Mennonites, Amish, Mormons, Muslims, Methodists, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses.  In other times and places, too, the principle of religious freedom has been instrumental in ending strife and establishing peace among people divided by religious convictions.  The Emperor Constantine, influenced by the great Christian philosopher, Lactantius, declared religious freedom in the Roman Empire just following the colossal Diocletian Persecution.  Theologians and philosophers in Europe and colonial America in the 17th and 18th centuries articulated religious freedom as a principle by which Catholics and various and fractious Protestants could live together in peace.

A principle that establishes peace among people who differ over what they believe to be most important is one that Americans would do well not to forget at this moment.  Citizens wanting to make America great again should remember that welcoming religious (and other) minorities is what made America great in the first place.  Citizens wanting to advance new norms of marriage and sexuality should affirm that those who believe traditional norms to be the contours of God’s love must not be fired or fined for conducting their lives accordingly.  If religious freedom is for anyone, it must be for everyone.

Christ the King and this Election Season

I want to start with a confession.  I am a political junkie.  And so, while I have no principled affinity with the major presidential candidates, still I check Politico and Five-Thirty-Eight to follow the race. I rationalize my habit by using Aristotelian maxims of being a “political animal,” but this year that was not quite enough justification.

And so I have exercised my political nature by diving a bit deeper into three voices on the periphery of our major media frenzy.  I want to share a few thoughts about these voices, and what they might mean during this time of focus on politics.  And this blog—dedicated as it is to elevating conversation even beyond the national arena—is a fit place to share what I am learning.

And so take a moment to move beyond Republicans and Democrats.  Rather, these players go by the names of “Tradinistas,” “Integralists,” and the American Solidarity Party.  At the end, though, for fellow junkies, I will share what these three political animals have to do with Election 2016.

First, the Tradinistas.  These young Christians promote the social “kingship of Christ.”  Clearly, that have looked at modern society and seen the way it represents a kind of anti-Gospel of exclusion, violence, and vice.  Their response is to turn to “traditional orthodoxy” in order to suggest a “politics of virtue and the common good,” while being clear-eyed that this will mean “the destruction of capitalism” and the establishment of a socialism marked by robust subsidiarity.

Greater social control of labor and wealth, especially when it ensures workers, local communities, and families have more access to personal property, is needed to combat the inequality and exploitation of global markets, where decisions are made based on the priority of capital.  As I examined the Tradinista Manifesto, I found myself appreciative.  No doubt, the vision seems abstract and impractical—especially when the current choice for president involves two super-capitalists—but the Tradinista response at least gets to the heart of the problem.

The second voice that garnered my attention this election season came from The Josias, a website full of interesting and thoughtful essays that promote Catholic integralism.  Integralism is, like the socialism of the Tradinistas, built on a commitment to the truth that Christ is king not of a cordoned-off spiritual realm but rather of all life, including the socio-political realm.  The integralists thus believe that political principles and structures—which should promote the natural good of human life—ought to be subordinate to theological principles and  ecclesial structures, which extend natural goodness toward our ultimate end of communion with God and the saints.

Writers at The Josias are complex thinkers and recognize that a variety of models can perform the “integration” necessary to help communities pursue the two-fold path toward goodness and holiness.  I certainly am not sounding the bell for a Catholic monarchy—even as depressing as I have found our choices this election,.  But it is hard not to pause for a moment, think of our candidates and global leaders, and wish that more of them had the moral vision offered by the Church, in particular of someone named Pope Francis!

I do believe that we Catholics should always be on guard against triumphalism—the Gospel indicts us all, not just Democrats and Republicans.  Yet we might also take a look at Catholic Social Teaching and say: “that might be about the best vision of justice on offer in the world today.” Of course, many will say “fine, but that still is not a practical option in this election.”

Or is it?  The third voice I have been following is the American Solidarity Party.  These folks—shall we call them/us “the Solids”?—are committed to a pro-life, pro-family and pro-peace and justice vision.  Check out their platform and you will find no daylight between it and the social doctrine of the Church. They do not run as candidates seeking an establishment of Catholicism as an official religion, but to me they do show that if you get the ultimate end of persons right—we are made for communion—then you also are on the path to a pretty good politics.

Their presidential ticket, Mike Maturen and Juan Munoz, has mainly write-in votes as its option, but is actually on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado.  Still their goal in 2016 is more modest: to begin to develop the party as a real alternative, much like the Greens have hoped to become for liberal progressives.  Will see more of the Solids—or how about “Virtue-crats”?—in coming local and national elections?  The answer to that may depend on the very people reading a blog like this.

And where does this leave a political junkie like me?  I write this on election eve, though many may read it after that fact.  And like many friends, I have gone back and forth about my votes.  When folks have asked what I will do, my musings about tradition or integralism or a third party seem at first not to help much.  But now that I have learned more from these voices, I am in better shape to share three conclusions which may even approach the realm of practical.

First, go to the polls—and consider the write-in option.  One thing I like about that option is that if there is any writing at all on a ballot, it gets counted by hand.  That means that somebody actually reads it.  Why not even share a brief sentence like “hoping for more pro-life and pro-peace candidates.”  Your ballot, or other votes for listed candidates, will not be dismissed. That would be illegal—and besides, the people who work on Election Day take very seriously making sure every vote counts.

Second, let’s go back to the idea that Christ really is King of our social and political lives.  Here we have to remember that clearest of lessons from the Gospel: the kingship of Jesus does not emerge in the expected ways.  This time of year, it’s true that many eyes (especially mine) are on the political structures that are up in the air. But our neighborhoods and social circles are also political structures, too, and they may be up in the air waiting for our involvement.  At least we could help redeem these places.

Third, let us use this moment to widen our capacity for political options.  It has been a long time since I really dived into Catholic integralism, or Catholic socialism, or even the viability of Christian Democratic parties.  But standing here, in the middle of the American “democracy,” seeing that of all the women and men capable of leading us we have “chosen” the two most established and flawed political and economic insiders… well, if that’s not a call for considering a few more voices, than all we have left is Politico, Five-Thirty-Eight and a pretty boring sense of politics.  Or we can join the conversation, the movement, to see what principles and shared visions emerge when we look to Christ as king not only of heaven but of earth too.

Seeking Civics for Anxious Times

This summer, something unexpected happened to me- I couldn’t stomach another news story. I’ve been a heavy news consumer since middle school so this was unusual. For weeks, I took a break. I wasn’t alone: almost everyone I talked to experienced something similar. The news, which people ordinarily cared about, had become of source of stress to the point that they were tuning out.

An American Psychological Association poll found that most Americans have found the election to be a major source of stress. New York Times columnist David Brooks has called it “an epidemic of worry”. The anxiety goes beyond US borders, given the outsize American role in the world: acquaintances from Canada, Sweden, and Australia have mentioned being worried and transfixed by the American political process.

We are united by our anxiety, even though it has many sources. It goes beyond the election, even as the election has been a focal point.

We worry about personal security amid random violence. Mass shootings remain a reality of American life. Terrorism is a particularly potent anxiety-provoker, infecting us with siege mindsets and triggering more negative judgments about outgroups. The lockdown mentality has trickled down to everyday conversation: I heard a colleague use the phrase “securing the perimeter” in describing a personal interaction (and not in an ironic way).

For many American Muslims like me, the worries are compounded; we are threatened not only by the terrorist violence but also the accompanying negative generalizations about Islam. Intolerant and prejudicial rhetoric is reliably followed by significant rise in hate crimes, while tolerant and inclusive rhetoric appears to put a brake on hate crimes. Even the more favorable voices portray us flatly as pawns in a security game, rather than as full citizens or persons. Dehumanized, we become more vulnerable to having our rights taken away, in our schools, our workplaces, and our communities.

There’s ethnic status anxiety. Demographic changes are spurring a nativist backlash. It’s an ugly echo of past ethnonationalisms, and a saddening retreat from humanism and inclusion. Especially troubling is the rise of religious nationalism- where religion becomes an inherited neo-tribal group identity clashing with outgroups, instead of pursuing the common good, and addressing the higher aspirations of the soul.

There’s class anxiety. Wages have stagnated and income inequality continues to grow. Automation and global competition are threatening jobs. Working people feel that future job prospects are uncertain. It’s not hard to find economically depressed communities around closed industrial plants here in the American Midwest, dotted with glitzy payday lenders offering loans at exorbitant interest rates.

There’s environmental anxiety. Every month in this year has been the hottest ever recorded for that month since measurement began. In 2016, we crossed the symbolic threshold of 400 ppm carbon concentration in the atmosphere, well above the 350 safe zone and approaching the 450 ppm of irreversible runaway effects. Without urgent action, we will lose two thirds of vertebrate wild animals by 2020, compared to 1970 levels. The Great Barrier Reef is under severe stress- an underwater structure so prominent it is visible from space, and about 93 percent is suffering from coral bleaching. People are so on edge that a satirical obituary for the Great Barrier Reef rocketed around social media as though it was real.

This worry list could easily go on- the blatant misogyny, the othering of peoples of color, the fraying of democratic norms and institutions, the coarsening of our public life. We have reasons to be anxious, and that can feed the impulse to withdraw and become insular. Is anxiety undermining our ability to reach and problem-solve with others unlike us?

The stakes are high in this moment. Our social order, even in this strained state, rests on an ecological foundation that is being rapidly depleted and undermined. Unless we act now, the environmental crisis will produce far more conflict, insecurity, economic distress, refugees, and public health problems. On Nov. 4, 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change officially came into force. All governments that have ratified it- the US, China, India, and EU among them- are now obliged to act to prevent the average global temperature from exceeding 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the point of irreversible and catastrophic climate change.

The Paris Agreement is an important signal of global concern, and the recent Kigali Amendment on HFC greenhouse gases is another step in the right direction. But existing national pledges alone are not going to keep us below the danger zone. More change and momentum is needed from the ground up to reduce our carbon emissions. These high-level summit agreements should spur us to act, taking civic initiatives to generate local changes, support advocacy coalitions, and overcome the social dilemmas needed to address our compound collective action problems.

The environmental crisis thus presents a civic opportunity. As artisans combine different materials to form something needed, so civic artisans combine diverse social elements to form rules to address common problems. Engaging in civic artisanship reduces isolation and the sense of anxiety- and it also helps solve the underlying problems.

Fighting for our environmental commons could spark a virtuous spiral, building our social commons. But it needs a kickstart. We who understand this must redouble our efforts and not disengage. We must live and pursue civics in our anxious times.

Hope for a Catholic Political Party: Never Bleaker, Never Brighter

I’ve long yearned for a Catholic political party.  It would be one that passes the test that Hubert Humphrey once posed for a moral nation, namely that it stands for people “in the dawn, in the twilight, and in the shadows of life.”  It would be the Democratic Party of the New Deal, the early labor movement, and the civil rights movement but without the lifestyle libertarianism.  It would be the Republican Party that was founded in the struggle against slavery, protects the unborn, and upholds marriage, but not the one that cheers the death penalty and hardens its heart towards the immigrant.  It would resurrect the pro-life Democrats and the legacy of the late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey.  It would be pro-life, pro-family, pro-environment, pro-immigrant, pro-religious freedom, pro-human rights, anti-death penalty, humane and law-abiding in its foreign policy, and against the radical division of classes that is now besetting America.  Such a party, I believe, would attract wide support among African-Americans, Latinos, Catholics, many evangelicals, and a wide swath of middle class Americans.

This election season, my hopes for such a party have never been bleaker and never been brighter.  Bleaker, because we’ve never had two candidates further from this position.  I will vote for neither.  I don’t decide this lightly because I think that one should strive to vote for one of the viable candidates if one’s conscience at all allows it.  Mine does not.

I follow the U.S. Catholic Bishops in the teaching that voting is not simply a matter of weighing up alternative futures in utilitarian fashion but also a matter of what kinds of policies one intentionally supports.  One cannot support policies that are intrinsically wrong or support candidates because they stand for these policies – that is, policies that are wrong whatever the circumstances or outcomes.  Both candidates support such wrongs beyond the threshold where I can consciously vote for one of them.  Others will place the threshold differently and we can disagree charitably.  But here is why I think both candidates are beyond it.

Secretary Clinton supports continuing and even expanding laws that have sanctioned the snuffing out of over 60 million unborn persons; perpetuating and expanding laws that deny the reality of something so fundamental as marriage and sexual natures; and likely the further restriction of religious freedom on behalf of laws that promote these causes.  She will bring a far steadier hand to executive leadership than Trump and more humane policies towards immigrants.  But her problems are deal-breakers.

Trump’s problems are well known and hardly worth repeating but are, briefly: support for torture; support for killing civilians in the war on terror; cavorting with racist allies; abusing women in word and deed; mocking the mentally handicapped; showing reckless disdain for the rule of law; and dismissing entire classes of human beings like Muslims and immigrants.

Both take me beyond the point where I can say, Which candidate is the better future?, and to the point where I must ask, Can I be complicit?

In Christian history, crisis and darkness form opportunities hope and renewal, and so I was delighted when, for the first time in my life, a real Catholic party appeared on the scene, the American Solidarity Party.  Built explicitly on Catholic social teachings – the wisdom of the encyclicals – the party adopts a wide ranging platform that channels these teachings into American politics.

It is inspired by Christian Democratic parties in Europe and Latin America, which – admittedly yesterday more than today – are also rooted in Catholic teachings.  Like Christian Democratic parties, the ASP is not exclusively Catholic and can appeal, I believe, to a wide range of constituencies, religious and otherwise.  The word Solidarity evokes the Polish Solidarity movement, which connected Catholic moral roots with political action and shook the world in the 1980s.

Third parties are difficult to sustain in the United States, though if there takes place such a shock to the system that one or both of the existing parties break apart – not entirely out of the question after November 8th – such a party might seize upon the opportunity to form a new electoral coalition.

To succeed and not end up a flash in the pan, I believe that ASP should form itself as a movement with deep intellectual and spiritual roots, one that reflectively connects religious and deep moral teachings to political positions – again, Christian Democratic Parties of yesteryear and Solidarity are examples.

It would also be nice were the ASP on the ballot in Indiana, which it unfortunately is not, even as an eligible write-in possibility.  After the election, though, there will be much work to do.

Added November 5, 2016: See also this excellent piece on ASP by my friend Malloy Owen.

New Documentary Film on How Christians Respond to Persecution

A new documentary film has emerged from the project, Under Caesar’s Sword: Christians in Response to Persecution.   It looks at how Christians around the world respond to violence and persecution and features first hand interviews and footage.  It is produced by Jason Cohen Productions.  I am pleased to announce it and invite all to view it.
Here is the web page for the film​​​, from which you can view the 26 minute film, a teaser, and a seven minute version.​
Also here is a press release for the film.

A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism? A New Book

A new book edited by Ryan Anderson and myself is now available.  It’s A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism? and is a collection of essays from the journal, The Review of Politics, founded here at Notre Dame in 1939.   Together, the articles tell the story of the conversation between liberalism and Catholicism — sometimes one of rapprochement, sometimes one of tension — in 20th and 21st century America. In the journal’s early years, it featured articles by European emigrés like Jacques Maritain, who admired the American experiment in liberal democracy and sought to ground a defense of it in Catholic principles.  Do not miss the 1950 piece by Heinrich Rommen, which is one of the strongest Catholic defenses of religious liberty prior to the Church’s declaration, Dignitatis Humanae, in 1965.  Later essays in the 1990s and 2000s by David Schindler, Michael Baxter, and William Cavanaugh raise skeptical arguments against American liberalism.

The volume features an essay by philosopher John Finnis that Anderson and I commissioned for this occasion in which Finnis responds to Ernest Fortin’s 1982 critique of Finnis’ 1980 classic, Natural Law and Natural Rights.

Anderson and I have an introductory essay that explores the conversation between Catholicism and American liberalism through the pieces.

These are only a few samples from this new collection.

Here is the book description from University of Notre Dame Press:

This volume is the third in the “Perspectives from The Review of Politics” series, following The Crisis of Modern Times, edited by A. James McAdams (2007), and War, Peace, and International Political Realism, edited by Keir Lieber (2009). In A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism?, editors Daniel Philpott and Ryan Anderson c1hronicle the relationship between the Catholic Church and American liberalism as told through twenty-seven essays selected from the history of the Review of Politics, dating back to the journal’s founding in 1939. The primary subject addressed in these essays is the development of a Catholic political liberalism in response to the democratic environment of nineteenth- and twentieth-century America. Works by Jacques Maritain, Heinrich Rommen, and Yves R. Simon forge the case for the compatibility of Catholicism and American liberal institutions, including the civic right of religious freedom. The conversation continues through recent decades, when a number of Catholic philosophers called into question the partnership between Christianity and American liberalism and were debated by others who rejoined with a strenuous defense of the partnership. The book also covers a wide range of other topics, including democracy, free market economics, the common good, human rights, international politics, and the thought of John Henry Newman, John Courtney Murray, and Alasdair MacIntyre, as well as some of the most prominent Catholic thinkers of the last century, among them John Finnis, Michael Novak, and William T. Cavanaugh. This book will be of special interest to students and scholars of political science, journalists and policymakers, church leaders, and everyday Catholics trying to make sense of Christianity in modern society.

“The pages of the Review of Politics since its founding in 1939 can be read as a chronicle of this partnership between the Catholic Church and liberal institutions—its development, its heyday, its encounter of travails, its ongoing virtues, and its persistent flaws. Indeed, the partnership has been fraught with controversy over its true extent, its robustness, and its desirability.” — from the introduction, A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism?

 

 

Meeting With Trump and Clinton on Religious Freedom

I am happy to have signed on to a statement on religious freedom (mostly in the global sense) that was presented yesterday in person to the Trump and Clinton campaigns.  Here is the press release, in which is embedded the group’s recommendations.  One of its implications is that religious freedom is something that everyone, religious or not, can get behind.

Contra Modern Wisdom, Christianity Incubated Freedom

A reigning view in modern liberal philosophy — and Western elite culture at large — is that the rise of freedom in the modern world required the decline of Christianity, or at least its marginalization from public life.  John Rawls and Mark Lilla make the argument and laud this marginalization; philosophers like Pierre Manent make the argument and lament it.

A new pair of volumes from Cambridge University Press assembles a host of blue-chip scholars to argue that the thesis is wrong.  (I am the author of one of the chapters but it is not I but the likes of Robert Wilken, John Rist, and Remi Brague who are the blue-chippers.) Historically, and around the world today, Christianity has been an incubator and driver of freedom.  Not always, of course: Christianity has inflicted its share of unfreedom.  But if the collective claim of the volume is right, then many of our present free institutions have Christianity to thank for their origins. And in authoritarian settings around the world, Christians are fighting for freedom.

An excellent entree to these works is this review by Samuel Gregg.  To see the volumes, go to Christianity and Freedom: Historical Perspectives.

 

 

 

Where Religion is Trusted for Politics

Recently, Elizabeth Sperber, a political scientist starting her career at the University of Denver and a talented scholar of religion and politics, along with her colleague Matt Herman, published a piece on the Washington Post‘s “Monkey Cage” on the fraught elections taking place in Zambia and the challenge of finding impartial observers.  The country turned to . . . its Christian churches.  It’s a fascinating case where religion is making a positive difference in politics.  Still, unresolved questions remain concerning the fairness of the elections.

© Daniel Philpott The views expressed in this forum are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent those of Daniel Philpott, CCHR, or the University of Notre Dame.