Separation of Meaning from Reality

"France and the United States have strong laws that uphold the separation of church and state, while many other nations do not. What model should those who favor democracy and human rights promote in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the former Soviet republics? Separation of church and state (and mosque)? One established "church?" Or some kind of middle road?"
-in an email from the Communitarian Network

My response:
I think the phrase "separation of church and state" confuses the two-fold nature of the religious clauses in the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
(the government can not endorse or oppose particular religions.)
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
(when people express their religious beliefs, the government can not interfere)

The phrase "separation of church and state" makes it appear that the government is to be shielded from religion. It makes for a great sound byte, but fails miserably to convey the meaning that comes through an actual reading of the two clauses. I think you would get more thoughtful responses by dropping the phrase "separation of church and state" and sticking with what the first amendment actually says.

Human Rights and Genocide

Genocide is occuring in the world today and there is not much I can do about it. The only thing I can think of is to look it in the eye and own it. Pretending like it is not happening is worse than acknowledging that it is happening and not being able to do anything about it.
The Secret Genocide Archive from todays NY Times

Samantha Power wrote the book A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide "There's never been a more important time to think about America's role in the world, about U.S. foreign policy, and about responsible citizenship." I browsed through the spring 2005 textbooks at the UNL bookstore and saw Samantha Power's book being used in several political science courses.

I think that educating myself about genocide is the best thing I can do toward being a part of the solution today. I fear doing nothing and taking actions that are seemingly helpful but end up making things worse. I know it does no one any good to try to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders, but you can't ignore festering boils.

Natural Law->Human Rights->International Law

I have not been to law school except for having taken "Public Policy Dispute Resolution" at UT Austin law school. My musings on law are therefore probably way off. The origins or reasons for law are studied in jurisprudence courses. Jurisprudence is a fancy way of saying "Legal Theory" or a "Philosophy of Law." I noticed that quite a few professors taught in the law school, government department, and philosophy department while I was at grad school. It almost seemed as if law and government were merely objects of applied philosophy.

The acts of law are fourfold:
1)To Allow
2)To Command
3)To Prohibit
4)To Punish

That which is not prohibited is allowed. That which is commanded is implicitly allowed. Without responsibilities, human beings need no legal rights. We have rights insofar are they are necessary for us to become fully human.

The acts of law can be observed wherever law is in effect. There is law made in family life in how parents run the household. In the workplace with office policies, etc.

How ought a person live? In the answer to that question, lies the origin of all law. Natural law is one line of inquiry in moral philosophy that attempts to answer the question. Human rights flow from how we ought to live. International law flows from the human rights to which all humans are entitled. It seems like the other side of the coin is sometimes forgotten, namely "how ought humans live."

Iterated Opinion

I found a quote in the Op/Ed page of the Washington Post citing the Op/Ed page of the NY Times here. "But as Paul Krugman of the New York Times has noted..."

This reinforces some ideas I learned in a "Media and Politics" course I took in grad school with Paul Burka. He said that the NY Times "reads" the country through its cultural lenses, formulates their opinion which in turn sets the agenda for the opinion and tone for the rest of the print and electronic media establishment. It was not meant as a critique, but merely as a description of how mass media functions and the ways in which it influences politics. On capital hill everybody reads the op/ed pages of the NY Times, Washington Post, and WSJ. That is just how it is. Occasionally people may glance at the op/ed page of the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, LA Times, or the CS Monitor.

I think I might try a little experiment and comment on the NY Times Op/Ed page this week on my blog to see if gives me "predictive" powers for what I will be watching on headline news in the evening. I will try to use my latest understanding of moral theory to evaluate the normative opinions given therein.

Cool Blogs

Catholic Ragemonkey Fr. Shane rocks!
Unstructured Musings Deep thoughts..hmmm (Unstructured Musings must be a self-deprecating boast. His thoughts are well structured and quite penetrating)
Ragamuffin Ramblings Steve is all heart.

Attraction rather than promotion

Attraction is better than promotion which is better than coercion.
What are the good things about the U.S. that other countries see as desirable?
Does globalization and the increased economic interdependence of nations tend to promote peace in the long run?
Is anything more effective at promoting peace than the combination of liberal democracy and capitalism?

Social Capital and Civil Society -Fukuyama style
Francis Fukuyama serves on the president's council on bioethics with Robert P. George (director of the James Madision Program at Princeton) who I heard speak at lecture while at the University of Texas.

I have never met Thomas J. Raleigh, but I like his observations on "moral ascendancy". He reminds me of Tom Otterpohl, a social entrepreneuer, who was the keynote at a conference at Benedictine Colleges' "Discovery Day" back several years who did work with orphanages in Russia.
..."moral ascendancy" " He did not define "moral ascendancy," nor did he explain how one achieves it....As a result of 9/11 attacks, the US was indisputably in a position of moral ascendancy - that is, the unambiguous and near-universal perception that your cause is right."

I met James Fallows at a conference on the future of libraries in the west. The "Infinite Library" Fleur Cowles Flair symposium at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin was incredible. I also met Prosser Gifford, Richard Eckman, and William Chace.
James Fallows on "soft power" excerpt -> "...the real foundation of American dominance seemed to be its "soft power"--the impact of its world-leading universities, its dominant pop culture, its revived high-tech industries, its booming employment rolls, its open-market ideology, and its continued ability to attract and use talent from around the world."

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. on "soft power" here. excerpt-> "Soft power is the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals. It differs from hard power, the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will. Both hard and soft power are important in the war on terrorism, but attraction is much cheaper than coercion, and an asset that needs to be nourished."