Foolables: not just on the political Left

Marci Hamilton self-identifies as a "life-long" Republican and a Christian. She's also the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Is is me, or do I smell a certain Foolableness to her alleged conservative critic of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum? Here's her essay.

She begins with her indentifiers. Then she presents the ideal the Framers sought to embody when they forged the constitution:

There was an abiding belief, at the Convention and among the Framers, that representatives should be "filters" of factions -- including religious factions, of which there was quite a variety at the time of the framing -- within the society, not simply stand-ins for such interests. The Framers' view was that only if factions, including religious factions, were filtered -- refocusing all requests to encompass serious inquiry into the public good -- could the system produce good laws and good government.

She then addresses the central theme of her critique:

Rick Santorum is no filter, as the following concrete examples will illustrate.

Her implication is clear: Rick Santorum does not contribute to good laws and good government because he does not filter religious factions--in his case, Roman Catholicism--toward a serious inquiry into the public good.

She highlights at least three examples where his advocacy for the Roman Catholic Church conflicts with constitutional separation of Church and State or hinders the interests of the common good. Her big three are his controversial blame of Northeast Liberalism for the 2002 Church abuse scandal, preferential treatment for Catholic University of America and his struggle to include references to the debate between proponents of evolution and ID in science curriculums, as part of No Child Left Behind. Her problems begin when she distorts his arguments with straw-men, instead of addressing the arguments that he actually makes.

She begins with a sound analysis of the in inexecusable behavior of American Bishops. She accurately demonstrates that the Bishop's practice of transferring child sexual predators from one parish to another has led to unimaginable harm to families across America. However, she goes off the rails when she assaults Rick Santorum's position on liberalism relatioship to the scandal:

Santorum might have been part of the solution, but instead, he has chosen to be part of the problem - continuing the denial that has afflicted the Church to which he belongs. According to Santorum, the Boston Archdiocese was itself a victim - the victim of a lax moral and sexual culture in the liberal Northeast. Here are his words on Catholic Online in 2002 -- words he has stood by, in the intervening years:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

In other words, Santorum is suggesting, Boston's pedophiles were foisted upon a defenseless Church.

No, that is not what Santorum is saying, Ms. Hamilton. Read his statement again. He's not saying that pedophile priests were "hoisted upon a defenseless Church." In fact, he makes it clear that the cultural influence alone is "no excuse for this scandal". He's pointing out the obvious fact that all of us are "affected" by our culture. This includes priests and bishops. Therefore, when the culture espouses moral relativism, there is a greater chance that priests and bishops will be more influenced by this moral relativism when they make decisions. In the case of pedophile priests--the overwhelming majority of whom abused pubescent boys--this relativism contributed to them making pathological rationalizations for their behavior. For Bishops, this relativism led the to inappropriately muddle their judgement of accused priests' behavior and overemphasize a "cpmpassionate" response to abusers, rather than the justice their behavior required. While I would not have singled out Boston for a clearly societal problem, I don't believe he's saying that Boston remains the primary cause of the Scandal. Instead, he simply observes the reality of the situation: Boston was the epi-center of the 2002 scandal, and it's also a city in which political liberalism has encouraged a culture of moral relativism. The responsibility for the scandal remains with the priests and bishops; in Boston's case, that means Cardinal Law. However, any honest thinker can't dismiss the role that moral relativism plays in this responsibility. Ms. Hamilton fails to address these valid points because she misinterpretes Mr. Santorum's position as a defense for his religious faction, Roman Catholicism. She makes this case, however, when she considers the Senator's action in her second point.

Here, Ms. Hamilton is on more solid ground:

Santorum also has used his position in Congress to protect the purse of Catholic institutions. For example, in 1998, he and Kennedy backed a little-noticed amendment to an unrelated bill that required the Old Soldiers' and Airmen's Home to sell its excess property to Catholic University of America and only Catholic University. In other words, there would be no free market bidding.

The Soldiers' Home, as it is called, is where enlisted servicemen can retire and get care, if they have no other options. It is funded by a small deduction from the payroll of enlisted men and women. The Department of Defense and Congress have refused to raise the deduction amount, but the demand has remained steady, leading to large deficits in the Home's budget.

Because the Home rests on many undeveloped acres in Washington, DC, it was decided that it ought to sell some of its excess property to the highest bidder, in order to raise funds to continue its worthy work. However, its neighbor, Catholic University, had its own designs on the property -- which it hoped to use at the time for a biomedical research facility, dormitories, and retail space. Later, it would say it was to be used for a Peace Center.

That in itself was fine, of course. What was not fine, was that CUA did not feel like paying market price for the property it sought. Thus, it approached Santorum and Kennedy, who were all too willing to slip in the amendment that forced the Home to sell to CUA alone, with CUA the only bidder.

That price probably would have been about one-third of the appraised value of the property. This was quite the financial hand-off.

Retired soldiers -- already angry over having been promised a lifetime of medical care, yet having health benefits cut repeatedly -- were outraged when they learned what had happened. A group called me, and, after consultation, we held a press conference.

There, I made it very clear that there was an obvious and actionable constitutional problem here. If there is one thing the government may not do under the Establishment Clause, it is to create a sweetheart financial deal for an individual religious organization.

Once outed, neither Santorum nor Kennedy defended their attempt to get CUA a discount at the expense of veterans, because they had no leg to stand on. Instead, they agreed to amend the law.

Government should not act as a Realtor for any third party, let alone on that has some relationship with any Church. If the establishment clause means anything, it means that government must not provide preferential treatment to any religion, especially at the expense of another party. Mr. Santorum's support for this CUA ammendment violates the spirit of the anti-establishment clause. This is a clear case in which Mr. Santorum sacrificed the common good--the tax-payers who indirectly support the Old Soldier's and Airmen's home--for the benefit of an private institution. Whether or not CUA remains affiliated with the Church is almost beside the point. Mr. Santorum had no business attempting to legislate this deal. Ms. Hamilton is entirely right to criticize his advocacy of Roman Catholicism in this case. She loses this high ground, however, when she attacks his position on ID.

This last point in her attack false apart due to an erroneous conception of the issue. She sounds so eminently Reasonable in her dismissal; it's no wonder her last argument is such a mess:

Santorum even presaged the conservative trend in his own Church. Recently, Vienna's Cardinal Christoph Schonborn announced, with the Pope's approval, that evolution is inconsistent with Catholic theology. At the time, Santorum was already pushing to get creationism - or, as it is now known, "intelligent design" -- added to the public school curriculum.

When the No Child Left Behind Act was being considered, Santorum introduced an amendment that would have required a discussion of what he called the "continuing controversy" over biological evolution, as part of the public school biology curriculum. In other words, he was interested in introducing what is in fact a religious belief, into the teaching of hard sciences to all American students. While other representatives worried about the knowledge gap between our students and other science students around the world, Santorum aimed to widen it by teaching religion in place of science. Despite his efforts, the amendment did not pass.

First of all, Many scientists would question her assertion that ID is "creationism." As for evolution, at least 400 non-creationist scientists have problems with it. That's her problem. She took the intellectually lazy way out of a legitimate debate. She dismisses Santorum as peddling a religious position on behalf of the Roman Catholic Chuch--when the Church herself doesn't even mandate a belief in creationism! Of course, she'd beg to differ, considering how she mischaracterizes Cardinal Schonborn position on evolution and the Faith. She'd be wrong. Her straw-man of Mr. Santorum's position does not hold up in light of the facts. He is not pushing a sectarian interest favored by Rome. He's advocating the inclusion of a perfectly valid debate in science education. This sounds more like an issue of academic freedom than religious encroachment. Too bad that Ms. Hamilton is on the wrong side of this debate.

In the final analysis, Ms. Hamilton's vision of Mr. Santorum as a reckless partisan for Roman Catholicism just doesn't hold up. She refuses to engage Mr. Santorum's actual position, with the exception of his advocacy on CUA. Therefore, her analysis suffers from a serious disconnect with reality. This is the hazard of Christian's carrying the water of Reasonable partisans. The tragedy of the Foolables--whether on the right or left--is that they undermine their own interests. They contribute to their own marginalization in the public square. They advocate the vapid atheism that ultimately leaves all Fools with no voice in society. They see their own champions as enemies to tear down. Ms. Hamilton proves herself, in the end, to be this kind of Foolable pundit. It's a shame, really. She sounds like she could be quite Foolish--if she'd actually think.