judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “cushing”

Title VII’s Religious Organization Exemption Protects Salvation Army

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Garcia v. Salvation Army(D AZ, Sept. 12, 2016), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought against the Salvation Army by a former social services coordinator for the organization.  Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and hostile
work environment after she stopped attending services at the Salvation Army’s Estrella Mountain Corps where she was employed.  The court held that Title VII’s religious organization exemption applies to plaintiff’s claim, and that the Salvation Army did not waive the defense by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Advertisements

WHY MAN AND WOMAN ARE NOT EQUAL

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in First Things which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

Of course, conservative Christians believe that women and men are not equal. We know we believe such things, because the elites outside our faith (today celebrating Women’s Equality Day) regularly tell us we do. How could we forget?

They are right, but in the wrong way. Civilized people realize (even when they don’t realize they realize) that male and female are not equal. G. K. Chesterton, with his table-turning wit, got it right in his essay “The Romance of Thrift”:

I remember an artistic and eager lady asking me in her grand green drawing-room whether I believed in the comradeship of the sexes, and why not. I was driven back on offering the obvious and sincere answer, “Because if I were to treat you for two minutes like a comrade, you would turn me out of the house.”

So it is. Women create, shape, and maintain human culture. Manners exist because women exist. Worthy men adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room. They become better creatures. Civilization arises and endures because women have expectations of themselves and of those around them.

This is not just a conservative or traditionalist idea.

The New York Times’s Gail Collins told NPR unequivocally that the most important primary finding of her brilliant book America’s Women (which faithfully sits to the left behind Leslie Knope’s desk in every Parks and Recreation episode), is that the most powerful and important influence women have had on our nation’s founding, growth, and success is this: They make men behave. All their other important contributions are secondary.

Collins provides examples from history. Here is one: The British investors of Jamestown—who sent only men to establish the work, so that they could not be distracted—were not seeing the expected return on their investment. They sent an agent to investigate, and it was found that the men weren’t working. According to the report of one Sir Thomas Dale, the men were at “their daily and usuall works, bowling in the streetes.” This habit kept the settlement, Collins explains, “a long, rowdy fraternity party, minus food.” The investors’ solution? They began enticing marriageable young women to set out for the colonies with offers of free passage and appealing hope chests. They supposed that wives might turn these “we’ll work tomorrow” fraternity boys into diligent, hard-working, productive men. And they did. One thing led to another, and presto: the most prosperous, hard-working nation in the history of the world. Not just because of women, but through the socializing power of wives and mothers.

Anthropologists have long recognized that the most fundamental social problem every community must solve is the unattached male. If his sexual, physical, and emotional energies are not governed and directed in a pro-social, domesticated manner, he will become the village’s most malignant cancer. Wives and children, in that order, are the only successful remedy ever found. Military service is a very distant second. Nobel Prize winning economist George Akerlof explains that “men settle down when they get married; if they fail to marry, they fail to settle down,” because “with marriage, men take on new identities that change their behavior.” This does not seem to work with same-sex male couples in long-term relationships.

Husbands and fathers become better, safer, more responsible and productive citizens, unrivaled by their peers in any other relational status. Husbands become better mates, treating their wives better by every important measure—physical and emotional safety, financial and material provision, personal respect, fidelity, general self-sacrifice, etc.—compared to boyfriends, whether dating or cohabiting. Husbands and fathers enjoy significantly lower health, life, and auto insurance premiums than do their single peers, for a strictly pragmatic reason. Insurance companies are not sentimental about husbands. Husbands get lower premiums because they are different creatures in terms of habits, values, behavior, and general health.

This is why Golding’s Lord of the Flies is a tale not so much about the dark nature of humanity as about the isolation of the masculine from the feminine. Had there been just a few confident girls amongst those boys, its conclusion might have been more Swiss Family Robinson.

Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. That is hardly her only power, but it is among her most formidable. Christianity has always known this. The Savior of the world chose to come to us through a wife and mother. It’s why you find what you find at the very center, the honored and singular position, on that superlative ceiling of a certain celebrated chapel.

Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe. She creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization. The first step in weakening her power is to convince her that she must overcome her femininity. This, ironically, is precisely what the most vocal strains of feminism have advocated. Yes, woman should have equality in the workplace, in politics, and in the public square. But to render her more like man in order to accomplish this, and to judge her womanliness a hindrance to her ascendancy, is to get things exactly backwards. It is to treat her as much less than she truly is.

By Glenn Stanton and published in First Things on August 16, 2016 (see here).

NBI Seminar: Family Law From A to Z – Roundup

As I have posted recently (see here), I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal education seminar hosted by the National Business Institute (a.k.a. NBI, see here).  The subject was “Family Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on two main topics in particular: Custody and Ethics.  I was joined by four other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Listed below is the complete list of the materials I wrote for my portions which can be read here on this blog.

Thanks!

__________

Company Settles With EEOC Over Firing of Seventh Day Adventist

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The EEOC announced last week that North Carolina-based Greenville Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc., has agreed to a $42,500 settlement in the EEOC’s suit (see prior posting) against it for firing a Seventh Day Adventist employee who refused a Saturday work assignment. The company has also agreed to a 5-year consent decree requiring it to create an anti-discrimination policy, engage in employee training, post notice about the lawsuit and submit periodic reports to the EEOC.

You can learn more about this issue here.

 

Church’s RLUIPA Claim Dismissed, But Defamation Claim Moves Forward

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Riverside Church v. City of St. Michael, (D MN, Aug. 31, 2016), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed a church’s RLUIPA and free exercise claims, but allowed the church to proceed on its free speech and defamation claims. A Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation attempted to purchase a building formerly used as a movie theater but could not obtain city zoning approval.  Eventually the city amended its zoning ordinance to allow religious assemblies, among others, in the relevant zoning district.  The Church however sued over the past zoning denials, and over an allegedly false public statement the city made as to why the Church withdrew from negotiations with the city.  In dismissing the Church’s RLUIPA claim, the court concluded that neither the substantial burden nor equal terms provisions of the law were violated.  The court also pointed to a less-often used safe-harbor provision in RLUIPA that allows the city to “avoid the pre-emptive force” of the statute by taking action to eliminate the substantial burden imposed by a policy.  In allowing the Church’s free speech claim to proceed, the court concluded that questions remained as to whether the ban on religious assemblies in the relevant zoning district was narrowly enough tailored to the city’s traffic safety concerns.

You can learn more about this issue here.

PC Entertainment as Medieval Allegory

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

These days, every piece of entertainment is read as though it were a raw allegory, in which there are no characters or events, only emblems. In a Christian allegory like Pilgrim’s Progress, abstract categories, collective identities, virtues and vices like Christian, Worldly Wiseman, and Obstinate run hither and thither, pretending to be particular people. The point isn’t art or a convincing fiction or shedding light on particular characters or events; it’s the flat didacticism of a hyper-simplistic sermon, pounded into the heads of the peasantry in the form of general categories of people performing generic actions. It was a relief to arrive at artists such as Shakespeare, in whose plays very particular people appeared and spoke and loved and fought.

If Shakespeare were around today, the reactions—even, for God’s sake, by drama critics—would tend to go like this: Danes are not really indecisive (let’s examine the statistics on that); this distortion and vilification of Danes must end. Women shouldn’t be portrayed as passive victims, like Gertrude and Ophelia, for women are super-strong, or at least if we keep saying that over and over we might convince ourselves that they are, which would be a good thing, even if they’re not. People like us want characters who look like us, in every single presentation of anything, so why doesn’t the cast more or less perfectly mirror the population as a whole by race, gender, orientation, disability?

Consider some of the reactions to the Roseanne revival, which really do tell you where we’re at right now. Roxane Gay in The New York Times, and a number of other people elsewhere, said it was funny, which, I remind us all, is a central function of comedy. Then she said she wouldn’t watch it again. She had a number of reasons, but the main one was that she doesn’t like the politics of Roseanne Barr’s Twitter feed. Soon we’ll be demanding an ideological profile of everyone working on any entertainment, so that we can insulate ourselves completely from any sign of disagreement. People, even fictional characters, disagreeing with me is abusive and harms my self-image; it’s like being sexually assaulted.

The new Roseanne has been held by many to be an “inaccurate” or “idealized” “portrait of the President’s base” (for example, by Jared Yates Sexton), which takes it for granted that the purpose of the show is to depict Trump voters, which I imagine is not exactly how Roseanne thinks about it, especially as her character long preceded the political advent of Trump. Now, there’s no doubt that what Sexton and others mean is that Roseanne, and every slice of media which depicts any person who supports Trump, should portray every Trump supporter as an idiot and a bigot. What they are saying flatly, though, is that Roseanne should base her character on statistical averages for Trump voters; that anyone who is depicting any Trump voter ought carefully to jam all Trump voters into a single body. Good luck.

That Roseanne Barr is a particular person, and Roseanne Conner a particular character, both of whom have a long history, is neither here nor there according to this style of criticism. That she’s extremely idiosyncratic and funny is irrelevant: if either Roseanne voted for Trump, she must represent herself as a “typical” Trump voter. There are about a million things wrong with this. It’s an extremely primitive form of raw philistinism that misunderstands art entirely. But perhaps the worst immediate practical consequence is that it’s turning television, drama, film, and fiction into sheer pedagogy. The question isn’t “Was that a good movie?” But, does it manipulate its audience to achieve some sort of social or political transformation?

That’s why Black Panther was welcomed as though it was the Poor People’s March on Washington, even as the cast peddled Lexuses. I’d like to start by demanding evidence that movies or sitcoms or novels actually do have much of an effect on anyone’s opinions or behavior or self-image.

If you were to put out a movie right now in which a black female character behaved passively, or in which she was in a self-esteem crisis that left her confused and which didn’t suddenly transcend into self-realization, you’d be regarded as a racist and sexist. People would criticize your work on the ground that it’s an inaccurate depiction of black women. You’d protest, in vain, that you did not write the character to be a representative of all black women, or “the typical black woman,” but rather a completely particular human being. In vain, that it’s be impossible to create a character that represented all black women. In vain, that every black women is in fact a particular human being. In vain, that what the critics want would make your art an idiotic allegory.

And in fact, what the critics demand is not an accurate representation of millions of people as one person, even supposing that such a thing were possible. What they demand is an inaccurate representation, a picture that is “aspirational,” in which each black woman depicted is all black women and all black women are beautiful and strong and overcome whatever hardships and barriers they face. Then maybe when all the black girls see it, they will become more like that.

So in the end, every character has to be an inaccurate and tendentious and impossible representation of millions of people, whether it’s all black women jammed into a single strong and beautiful body or all Trump supporters jammed into the body of Roseanne. You certainly will kill entertainment this way, making it all into an ideological falsification of reality. And if you think that proceeding in this utterly disingenuous and incoherent manner way will make black girls stronger or Trump supporters more ashamed, I demand that you show me the fucking evidence.

By Crispin Sartwell and published in Splice Today and can be found here.

 

NBI Seminar: Ethics

As I have posted recently (see here), I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal education seminar hosted by the National Business Institute (a.k.a. NBI, see here).  The subject was “Family Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on two main topics in particular: Custody and Ethics.  I was joined by four other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Copied below are the materials I wrote for the section entitled “Ethics.”

Thanks!

__________

 Client/Lawyer Relationship

The client/lawyer relationship in a family case is unlike that relationship in any other case.  A family law case involves extremely intimate and visceral issues affecting intensely personal aspects of one’s life.  A family case looks at one’s sex life, home life, relationship with a significant other, children, and finances; there are few things more personal than these.  When a client seeks out an attorney to help him through these issues, that attorney should be cognizant that the client is coming to him for more than just a mere legal problem, but a problem affecting his every day personal life.  As a result, the attorney’s role with his family law client is often more than just as a legal advisor, but also something of a counselor as well.

There are factors other than legal maneuvers and/or dollars and cents that go into the issues which the attorney and client need to address in a family case.  Like all legal issues, a family client should have a sober view of the costs and benefits of the litigation at hand, but, due to the intensely personal issues involved, there is more than just costs to consider.  For example, a family client embroiled in a divorce may be fighting for a family heirloom which, for that client, is of priceless value.  Other times, the emotionality in the case is so high that the client may be willing to spare no costs to have his revenge against his spouse.  Still other times, clients may pursue the custody of their children without any sense of the costs involved and/or approach issues through emotion rather than rationality (e.g.: being unwilling to accept that his spouse is in a new relationship).

Suffice it to say, it is imperative for an attorney involved in a family case to take the time to think beyond mere legal considerations and delve into the emotional and personal issues which form the underpinning of those legal issues.  A client often has emotional attachment to his house, or his personal property, and, most especially, family heirlooms.  The attorney should help the client walk through his emotions to discern whether it is worthwhile investing a lot of time and/or money into those items.  Other times, a client may be pursuing a course of action that has revenge as its primary motivation, as opposed to a legitimate legal or personal reason; here, again, the attorney’s role is to help direct the client’s efforts to more productive ends.

Custody cases are cases which especially need an attorney’s sober input into an emotionally charged situation.  Understandably, clients become extremely emotional when dealing with the custody of their children.  Sometimes clients simply cannot accept that the other parent has entered into a new relationship.  Other times, a client has a hard time dealing with the fact that the other parent makes different decisions than he would have.  Of course, still other times, unfortunately, a client may not objectively be a responsible or good parent.  It takes an attorney, who is dispassionate from the case, to help the client look at the matter rationally and from a more objective point of view.  The focus of a child custody matter is the child, and what is in his best interests, and sometimes those best interests are not served by one’s own client.  It often takes more than mere legal analysis to help a client recognize what is best for his children.

Custody is also unique inasmuch as the case can continue for many years, has to account for all the various chances and vagaries of life, and its effects can last long after the case concludes.  A child will take with him for the rest of his life how his parents interacted with him and with one another.  Furthermore, in most cases, a child will maintain relationships with both of his parents during the case, and long after the case concludes, which means that they (the two parents) will have to deal with one another indefinitely.  So, it is important for an attorney to sit down with his client and talk about the emotional and interpersonal implications of custody that are not necessarily legal issues.

Attendance at Client Conferences by Friends or Family of Client

The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to family cases just as much as they do to other sorts of cases; therefore, Pa.R.P.C. 1.6 applies.  Pursuant to Rule 1.6 a client is entitled to lawyer/client confidentiality.  Given this, then, it is important to be cognizant and vigilant as to who is permitted into a conference with the client.

As with any case, certain factors need to be considered before allowing a third party into a client conference: (1) does the client give permission to have the third party in the room?; (2) will the client provide compromising information that could be drawn from the third party at a hearing (and unprotected by lawyer/client confidentiality); and, (3) could the third party be an adverse party?

As a threshold matter, the client must grant permission for anyone to be present at any conference.  The presence of a third party serves as a waiver of confidentiality, and, generally speaking, only the client can waive lawyer/client confidentiality/privilege.  The other factors listed above are tactical in nature.  Once the confidentiality/privilege is waived, the third party could be called as a witness and examined at a hearing as to what the client said in what was believed to be a private meeting.  Obviously, this could serve to severely handicap a case if certain issues come to light that otherwise could have remained in confidence.  Finally, it is not uncommon for a third party – such as a grandparent – to seek custody of a child.  The client and his parents may be allies when a case begins, but life is unpredictable and the relationship between a client and his parents could deteriorate, leading to the grandparents seeking custody themselves.  As a result, an adverse party has had direct and intimate access to confidential lawyer/client communication and information which could be used against the client.

Finally, a person who finds himself in a custody case is often in a compromised position in his life.  In other words, sometimes a person who is very young and/or financially insecure and/or still living with his parents and/or frightened or scared or at a loss as to what to do, has a child.  Such a person reaches out to the people in his life, say his own parents or his new girlfriend or wife, or what-have-you, for advice, counsel, and/or moral support.  While this is perfectly natural and in most situations a good thing, it is important to be attentive to undue influence over the client from these third parties.  It is getting increasingly common in our post-modern culture for grandparents to have a significant role in the raising of grandchildren.  An attorney has to ensure that the goals being sought, and the arguments being made, and the tactics employed are the ones the client wants (with the attorney’s guidance and advice of course), and not the goals, arguments, and tactics the third party wants.  Obviously, a client will be influenced by all of the voices in his life, but the attorney must ensure, as best he can, that the decisions made by the client are his own and not merely those he is pressured into by third parties.

Attorneys’ Fees

An attorney has an obligation to ensure he clearly expresses his fee structure and billing to his client.  This clarity includes the amount of the fee, whether the fee is flat or hourly (and, if hourly, how that is calculated), expressing the billing rate, and for what he is using the fee.

The main distinctive in family law, as compared to other areas of the law, is that a family law attorney may not enter into a contingency fee arrangement with a client where payment is contingent upon securing a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support received by the client.  Obviously there are no contingency in custody matters either.

Of course, when pursuing payment of one’s attorney’s fees by the opposing party, one must ensure one’s billing is clear, reasonable, and accurate.

Communication With Adverse Party

Communication with an adverse party, if represented, is like any other sort of case.  Communication ought to be timely, civil, and professional.  When discussing the case with the adverse party, it behooves the attorney to keep in mind that he does not have personal knowledge of the underlying issues and to do his best not to get embroiled in the emotionality of the underlying issues.  While strong advocacy is always key to an attorney’s representation of a client, keeping one’s mind open is beneficial, especially in cases involving children where their best interests are being sought (as opposed to one’s client’s best interests).  As mentioned above, emotionality is high in family court cases, and an attorney ought not contribute to it, but, rather, should serve to help temper it.

Communication with an unrepresented party presents a couple of variables that would not necessarily be present with a represented party.  It is important for an attorney not to misrepresent the law, bully, or otherwise misuse his influence or position when communicating with an adverse party.  A way to ensure as much transparency as possible is to keep communications with unrepresented parties in writing and stored in the client’s file, regardless of whether that is electronic communication, facsimile, or traditional letters.  It is worth noting that the negative feelings an adverse party has toward one’s client are, more often than not, easily transferred to the attorney representing that client.  So, as a result, the aggressive stance and perhaps unkind (if not directly insulting) words which could be directed towards one’s client will frequently be directed toward that client’s attorney.  The attorney must do his best not to get caught up in the moment and respond personally in the face of such treatment.  Keep in mind that the adverse party is usually just as emotionally invested in the case as one’s own client and one should not take the negative treatment one receives personally but, rather, understand it to be the expression of a frustrated and angry individual who has dispute with one’s client.  Keeping a level head, calm voice, and focusing on the issues, will help turn away the wrath of an adverse party, and help foster an environment where resolution can be achieved.

Finally, in the context of divorce, there is a notice period which can be waived provided the appropriate document is prepared and executed.  As an unrepresented party is typically at a disadvantage against an attorney, it is best, in order to avoid as much ambiguity as possible, simply not to have the unrepresented party execute the waiver, to ensure he is given as much leeway as reasonably possible.

Malpractice Concerns

Ethics complaints/grievances are heard by the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board.  All lawyers admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Disciplinary Board serves to ensure lawyers remain compliant with the Rules.

When a client believes an attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, he has the right to bring a complaint with the Disciplinary Board.  Once the complaint is filed, the Disciplinary Counsel takes the lead and determines whether that complaint will lead to discipline.  As a result, a complainant (i.e.: the client) is merely a witness to the disciplinary complaint while the Disciplinary Counsel takes the lead.

The Counsel, if it determines that an attorney my be subject to discipline, conducts an investigation.  This investigation includes affording the allegedly unethical attorney an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him.

In order for an attorney to be found to have committed misconduct, the opposing party must prove the alleged misconduct with clear and convincing evidence.

The potential discipline an attorney could receive is either private or public.  Private discipline typically does not require a hearing as it is generally reserved for minor violations that will not lead to disbarment.  A minor violation is usually a matter which is a first offense and/or something that can be easily corrected and/or the result of merely poor habits or case management.  A private discipline – which is not publically available – includes things like private reprimands and informal admonitions.

A serious violation, which could result in discipline like disbarment, suspension, or censure, is considered public discipline.  Public discipline is typically imposed after a hearing.  Public discipline can only be imposed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.  If an attorney is disbarred, the attorney cannot practice law at all in any way.  A disbarred attorney may seek reinstatement after five years, but only if the attorney can show that he can meet the moral qualifications, and his resumption of the practice of law will not diminish the integrity of the bar.  Disbarment is completely public except in situations when the attorney elects to resign from the bar, in which case the record upon which the disbarment is based is confidential.  Another public discipline is suspension.  While suspended, an attorney cannot practice law.  Suspension can be as long as five years in length, but if it reaches five years in length, the same standards to resume practice as disbarment apply.  Finally, an attorney may be publicly censured.

The time an ethics complaint can take may be relatively short, but could also last approximately one year in length.

As a complainant is not a party to the ethics matter, he has no right to appeal an adverse decision.  Instead, the Counsel allows for an internal review process which can be requested by a Complainant.  If the Counsel rules in favor of the attorney, that attorney cannot bring suit against the Complainant as any communications and/or testimony are absolutely privileged and the person who provided the communication and testimony is immune from civil suit.

It is important to note than an ethics proceeding is not a substitute for legal malpractice law suit.

What is the purpose of our economic activity?

This article is part of my posts on the economic system of distributism.  This is from practicaldistributism.blogspot.com which you can find here:

____________

Based on a talk given at
The American Chesterton Society Conference
5 August, 2016
When we look at the economic conduct of mankind and ask ourselves why the human race engages in such activities, I suppose that everyone would admit that we do so in order to produce goods and services for our use. So far, so good. But I submit there are two contrasting ways of looking at this activity and the products that result from it. This contrast can become clear if I juxtapose two quotations that exhibit two very different attitudes toward the economic activity of mankind. The first is from St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote that “…the appetite of natural riches is not infinite, because according to a set measure they satisfy nature; but the appetite of artificial riches is infinite, because it serves inordinate concupiscence….” (1) St. Thomas was here contrasting real economic goods – “natural riches” – with “artificial riches” – money and other surrogates for real wealth. The former serve us, they “satisfy nature,” and we desire only enough of them as we can reasonably use, for there is only so much stuff which any person can actually use, and if we acquire more than that, we must resort to devices such as renting storage bins in order to keep our extra and unnecessary possessions, something which in St. Thomas’ time happily did not exist. But even in the thirteenth century it was easier to store up money than actual physical things, and today this is incomparably easier, since bank statements and stock certificates take up very little space. But these sorts of goods can serve “inordinate concupiscence,” for there is a constant temptation to acquire and retain more than we really need or that can possibly serve any genuine human need.

My second quote is from the late Paul Samuelson, winner of a Nobel prize in economics, who wrote

An objective observer would have to agree that, even after two centuries of rapid economic growth, production in the United States is simply not high enough to meet everyone’s desires. If you add up all the wants, you quickly find that there are simply not enough goods and services to satisfy even a small fraction of everyone’s consumption desires. Our national output would have to be many times larger before the average American could live at the level of the average doctor or big-league baseball player. (2)

Here we have two opposed conceptions of the purpose of economic activity, one which is focused primarily on what is natural to humanity, which fulfills human needs, and the second which deliberately abstains from any moral consideration of human desires. If someone wants something, that’s all that matters. The economy exists to satisfy any and all desires.

Now I should note that Aquinas is not asserting that it’s only our basic needs for food or shelter or clothing that are natural. The purposes for which we need material goods can be broadly divided into two parts: first, the absolutely necessary goods, sufficient food, water, shelter, to keep the human race alive. But if we stopped there we would be like ants or bees. They also engage in work to provide for themselves these necessities of life. Human beings, however, are rational animals, that is, our capacities surpass the merely material level, and hence for us a proper human life is not limited simply to survival. We need objects of beauty, music, books, even, in some measure, devices and inventions that make life easier or save time and effort. Without these a properly human life is impossible or difficult. But all the same, St. Thomas sets up human nature as the standard against which man’s economic activity must be measured, whereas Samuelson simply takes each and every demand for a good or service as a given.

I trust I don’t need to belabor which of these two attitudes toward economic activity and material things ought to characterize a Christian, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Holy Scripture itself is quite clear on this point:

…if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. (I Tim. 6:8-10)

In Centesimus Annus St. John Paul II speaks of “the right to possess the things necessary for one’s personal development and the development of one’s family” (no. 6). And in the same encyclical he writes in another passage (no. 36),

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward “having” rather than “being,” which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself.

Now I realize that it’s not always easy to say how much is “necessary for one’s personal development and the development of one’s family.” In fact, there is apt to be disagreement about what is a reasonable standard that satisfies nature. And to some extent such disagreement is to be expected, for it’s impossible to calculate such a standard with mathematical exactness. But the important thing, and certainly the first thing to do, is to recognize that mankind’s economic activity and the products that result therefrom do have a purpose, to “satisfy nature,” and not to satisfy simply any and every desire prompted by the wish “to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself,” so that everyone can live in the manner of a major-league baseball player. At some point, any sensible person will have to admit that the needs of nature have been satisfied, and that anything beyond that is simply excess.

Now, If we accept what I have said so far, what logically follows? We can apply the teaching of St. Paul and St. Thomas and St. John Paul not only to individuals and families, but also to societies.  I am aware that many individuals and families do seek in some degree to acquire and use material goods according to these stipulations and warnings. In a society such as ours this is not easy to do, and, as I just said, it’s often very difficult to decide what is a reasonable standard of living that will satisfy nature, especially since American society can make it difficult to live a countercultural life. In this regard I will note only two things.

First, as Benedict XVI wrote in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate (no. 37), “every economic decision has a moral consequence.” Since the kinds of stores we patronize, the kinds of products we buy and use, have consequences that are both economic and environmental, therefore they have both moral and spiritual consequences for each of us. Someone who desires to “live at the level of the average doctor or big-league baseball player” is making decisions which not only have moral consequences but unavoidably shape that person’s soul according to a particular pattern. A lifetime of our economic decisions will determine whether we have shaped ourselves according to the image of Samuelson’s economic man or to the opposite pattern suggested by Holy Scripture and the writings of the saints.

Secondly, just as it’s very difficult for someone raised in a society saturated by pornography and sexual promiscuity to realize what a sane and healthy sexuality is, so it’s hard for us who were raised in a commercial society, a society which more or less makes riches and material goods an idol, to realize what a sane attitude toward work and material goods is. In both cases we have to strive, using all the means of grace available, to form sound judgments. But now I want to turn our attention to the question of society as a whole, that is, about how a society that seeks to orient its productive activity toward satisfying nature might conduct itself.

The following is a description, from Richard Tawney’s seminal book, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, of the outlook of Medieval Europe toward work and material goods.

Material riches are necessary; they have a secondary importance, since without them men cannot support themselves and help one another; the wise ruler, as St. Thomas said, will consider in founding his State the natural resources of the country. But economic motives are suspect. Because they are powerful appetites, men fear them, but they are not mean enough to applaud them. Like other strong passions, what they need, it is thought, is not a clear field, but repression. There is no place in medieval theory for economic activity which is not related to a moral end, and to found a science of society upon the assumption that the appetite for economic gain is a constant and measurable force, to be accepted, like other natural forces, as an inevitable and self-evident datum would have appeared to the medieval thinker as hardly less irrational or less immoral than to make the premise of social philosophy the unrestrained operation of such necessary human attributes as pugnacity or the sexual instinct.

And he continues with his description of medieval economic ethics:

At every turn, therefore, there are limits, restrictions, warnings, against allowing economic interests to interfere with serious affairs. It is right for a man to seek such wealth as is necessary for a livelihood in his station. To seek more is not enterprise, but avarice, and avarice is a deadly sin. Trade is legitimate; the different resources of different countries show that it was intended by Providence. But it is a dangerous business. A man must be sure that he carries it on for the public benefit, and that the profits which he takes are no more than the wages of his labor. (3)

And another historian wrote along similar lines,

We can, therefore, lay down as the first principle of mediaeval economics that there was a limit to money-making imposed by the purpose for which the money was made. Each worker had to keep in front of himself the aim of his life and consider the acquiring of money as a means only to an end, which at one and the same time justified and limited him. When, therefore, sufficiency had been obtained there could be no reason for continuing further efforts at getting rich,…except in order to help others. (4)

The questions I’d like to consider now concern how a truly Christian society would implement these ideals. Many people, certainly most Americans, would think that adherence to such standards must be something purely voluntary. At most, the Church would seek to persuade people of its desirability via her preaching and catechesis. And certainly that is the first thing to be done, to create a social consciousness that the pursuit of riches beyond what one needs is both criminal and stupid. Criminal because it helps create a society that upholds false ideals and corrupts all of our souls, stupid because it detracts from what life in this world is about, and above all, because it makes more difficult our attainment of eternal life. I am not asserting that it is a sin simply to be rich, but I do assert that riches are almost always a near occasion of sin, and therefore we’d better be pretty sure we have a genuine justification for our riches. And especially do we need a very good justification for seeking more riches if we already have enough so that the demands of nature are satisfied.

But there is more. You’ll notice what Tawney said in the passage I just quoted, “At every turn, therefore, there are limits, restrictions, warnings, against allowing economic interests to interfere with serious affairs.” A Christian society will not be content to simply use moral persuasion in order to correctly orient out attitude toward work and material goods. If nothing else, such a society will make it rather hard for someone to get rich. It will certainly do nothing to facilitate such acquisition of riches, and it will try to structure its laws, tax code and general economic arrangements so that it is easy to earn enough to support one’s family, but hard to do more.

Many are familiar with the taxation scheme suggested by Hilaire Belloc in his 1936 book, The Restoration of Property, according to which any enterprise which exceeded a certain size would be taxed at such a high rate that no one would expand his business beyond a modest size. I know that many people have an instinctive violent reaction against such proposals, but those who do should ask themselves a couple questions. How is this an unjust restriction? How is anyone’s true good harmed by such laws? Until recently we as a society in the United States saw this clearly with regard to that other great human appetite, sexual satisfaction. Within the lifetime of many of us divorce was in most states difficult to obtain, pornography was strictly regulated or even prohibited, homosexual activity illegal. And laws on the books even forbade adultery, even if they were rarely enforced. Even today prostitution is illegal in nearly every state.  We justified these restrictions by saying that such activity was contrary to both the natural law and the revealed law of God, harmful to individuals and to the social order, and that therefore the free choices and desires of individuals could justly be limited in such matters.

If we are serious about conforming our lives to the norms of morality with regard to money and property, the same argument applies: “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.” The disordered striving after riches is as hurtful to the common good as is the disordered striving after sexual pleasure.  Both material wealth and sexual pleasure are true goods, but they are goods only in their rightful places. No one’s genuine freedom or legitimate rights are infringed upon if the pursuit of wealth is hindered and directed toward legitimate channels, even by use of state power, just as no one’s genuine freedom or legitimate rights are infringed upon by legal restrictions on disordered sexual behavior.

There is a wonderful quote from G. K. Chesterton in What’s Wrong With the World that juxtaposes so well these two areas of human behavior.

I am well aware that the word “property” has been defiled in our time by the corruption of the great capitalists. One would think, to hear people talk that the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers were on the side of property. But obviously they are the enemies of property; because they are enemies of their own limitations. They do not want their own land; but other people’s…. It is the negation of property that the Duke of Sutherland should have all the farms in one estate; just as it would be the negation of marriage if he had all our wives in one harem. (5)

If it is proper to prevent the Duke of Sutherland from obtaining all of our women as his wives, why is it not proper to prevent him from obtaining all the property as his own?

Let me go one step further, or one level deeper, in our exploration of this topic. Most people who would object to what I just said about the use of social or legal power to restrict our acquisitive appetites, would object, I think, because, usually unknowingly, they hold an idea about social or political authority which is grounded not in classical philosophy or Holy Scripture, but in the Enlightenment of the 18th century, most notably in the writings of John Locke. Government, according to this notion, is merely a necessary evil, necessary because of mankind’s tendencies toward anti-social conduct. “If men were angels,” wrote James Madison in Federalist no. 51, “no government would be necessary.” Implicit in such a notion is the idea that man’s natural state is a-social, and that every restriction we accept as part of living in society is a restriction on our natural freedom, justified usually by the benefits which sociey brings, but still, something essentially unnatural, something which inhibits our natural freedom. Most political discourse in the United States, of both liberals and conservatives, simply assumes such an understanding of freedom and society.

Here again, though, we find Thomas Aquinas teaching a different view. In the Summa Theologiae (I, q 96, art 4) he asks whether there would have been subordination of man to man in the state of innocence, i.e., without Adam’s fall into sin. And he answers his question clearly, saying Yes.  Although there would not have been the domination (dominium) characteristic of the slave (servus), who is “ordered to another,” there would still have been the kind of subjection proper to the free man, when someone directs him to his own good or to the common good. And the primary reason given by Aquinas for this is because man is “naturally a social animal” and “social life cannot exist unless someone presides who aims at the common good.” In other words, according to Aquinas, even if our first parents had never sinned and lost the state of original justice, we still would have required a sort of government, a government that would not have needed to punish anyone, but was still there to coordinate and direct our efforts toward the common good.

I submit that this difference between St. Thomas and Locke manifests the fundamental error of almost all political discourse in the Anglo-Saxon world, especially the United States. But Locke is simply wrong: man is by nature a political animal, our natural state is one of community, with all the necessary restrictions that such community requires and implies. This is not to justify tyranny or to deny that personal political freedom is a good, but it is to insist that such political freedom is far from the highest political virtue.  Justice is more important than freedom, and in fact, any understanding of freedom which regards it as primarily the right to do anything which one pleases, is a disordered understanding. Just as marriage vows do not limit our true sexual freedom, but actually allow for human sexuality to flourish in proper freedom, so society, including government, is not a restriction on man’s legitimate freedom, but the precondition for a true flourishing of such freedom. We do not trade a certain amount of freedom for a certain amount of security, as in the Lockean myth of the social contract, but we are placed by God and nature into society, without which freedom would be a meaningless exercise in randomness.

As a result, then, if a society attempts to channel its economic activity toward the common good, it in no way infringes on real economic freedom. Rather it provides the necessary means by which economic activity can attain its true end: not the goods and services that satisfy everyone’s consumption desires, but the appetite for natural riches which according to a set measure satisfy nature. This is true Christian wisdom, this is the teaching of the Church, the command of Holy Scripture, and the sure way toward our eternal salvation.

Notes:
(1) Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 2, a. 1 ad 3.

(2) Microeconomics, 17th ed., 2001 p. 4.

(3) Richard H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, New York, 1926, pp. 31-32.

(4) Bede Jarrett, Social Theories of the Middle Ages, pp. 157-158.

(5) Part I, chapter 6.

Moorish-American Religious Defense To False Identity Charge Fails

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

Thomas v. Commonwealth, (VA App., Aug. 16, 2016), involved an appeal by defendant of his conviction for providing a law enforcement officer a false identity with intent to deceive.  Defendant, who was driving with a suspended license, told police during a traffic stop that his name was “Barry Thomas-El.” Police were unable to locate information on anyone with that name from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and only later identified him as “Barry Nelson Thomas, Jr.”  At the trial court level, defendant attempted to raise a religious free exercise defense, arguing that use of the suffix “El” was an exercise of his religious beliefs as a Moorish-American national. The trial court excluded evidence relating to this defense.  The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed, largely on procedural grounds, saying in part:

At the motion in limine hearing, appellant’s counsel argued that adding the suffix “El” to appellant’s name was an act of free exercise noting his “rebirth” within the Moorish American community…. However, appellant’s counsel failed to properly proffer what appellant’s testimony would have been at trial.

The court also upheld the trial court’s exclusion of several documents relating to defendant’s claim of Moorish-American citizenship, saying:

As the documents are political, rather than religious, in nature, they lack any tendency to make the existence of a religious imperative more or less probable. As such, they are irrelevant and thus not admissible.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Mike Rowe: America’s Suffering From ‘An Epidemic Of Fatherlessness’

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in The Daily Wire and Facebook which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

ByJACOB AIREY

March 28, 2018

On Tuesday, Mike Rowe, host of “Returning The Favor” and “Dirty Jobs,” took to Facebook to defend fathers and fatherhood in general, pointing to the growing discontent with having a strong dad in the home.

In the post, Rowe highlights a comment by Angelina Jolie he suggests echoes the sentiment of too many people in our culture:

A couple years ago, when Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were getting divorced, Jolie was quoted as saying, “It never even crossed my mind that my son would need a father.”

I was struck by her comment, and I remember wondering how many other Americans might share her view. At the time, I didn’t think many. But today, I’m convinced the number is significant. I’m also amazed at how quickly fatherhood has fallen out of favor. Can you imagine a celebrity – or anyone for that matter – saying such a thing just twenty years ago?

Rowe then cites facts and statistics about the negative effects of a fatherless home.

The facts seem pretty clear.

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average. (US Dept. Of Health/Census)
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes – 14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
  • 43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]

Is it really so surprising to learn that a majority of bullies also come from fatherless homes? As do a majority of school shooters? As do a majority of older male shooters?

Rowe goes on to ask readers to “consider the possibility that this thing we like to call ‘an epidemic of bullying,’ is really an ‘epidemic of fatherlessness.’ I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that our society is sending a message to men of all ages that is decidedly mixed”:

Think about it. On the one hand, we’re telling them to “man-up” whenever the going gets tough. On the other, we’re condemning a climate of “toxic masculinity” at every turn. If that strikes you as confusing, imagine being a fourteen-year old boy with no father figure to help you make sense of it.

Read Rowe’s complete post here and the article is here.

______________

FB:

Returning the Favor

A couple years ago, when Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were getting divorced, Jolie was quoted as saying, “It never even crossed my mind that my son would need a father.”

I was struck by her comment, and I remember wondering how many other Americans might share her view. At the time, I didn’t think many. But today, I’m convinced the number is significant. I’m also amazed at how quickly fatherhood has fallen out of favor. Can you imagine a celebrity – or anyone for that matter – saying such a thing just twenty years ago?

This week’s episode of RTF is about a guy named Carlos who found an effective way to deprogram bullies. Please watch it. It’s a great story about a great guy making a real difference around a serious issue. It occurred to me though, half way through filming, that bullying – like so many other social ills in today’s headlines – isn’t really a problem at all; it’s a symptom. In my view, a symptom of a society that seems to value fatherhood less and less.

The facts seem pretty clear.

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average. (US Dept. Of Health/Census)
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes – 14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
• 43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]

Is it really so surprising to learn that a majority of bullies also come from fatherless homes? As do a majority of school shooters? As do a majority of older male shooters?

I know this is controversial, and I’m sorry to inject an uncomfortable element into a post about a “feel-good” show, but I think it’s important to consider the possibility that this thing we like to call “an epidemic of bullying,” is really an “epidemic of fatherlessness.” I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that our society is sending a message to men of all ages that is decidedly mixed.

Think about it. On the one hand, we’re telling them to “man-up” whenever the going gets tough. On the other, we’re condemning a climate of “toxic masculinity” at every turn. If that strikes you as confusing, imagine being a fourteen-year old boy with no father figure to help you make sense of it.

Anyway, the bullying crisis is real, but the root cause has nothing to do with video games, or guns, or social media, or rock and roll, or sugary drinks, or any of the other boogymen currently in fashion. Nor is it a function of some new chromosome unique to the current crop of kids coming of age. Kids are the same now as they were a hundred years ago – petulant, brave, arrogant, earnest, frightened, and cocksure. It’s the parents who have changed. It’s the parents who have put their own happiness above the best interests of their kids. It’s the parents who actually believe “the village” will raise their kids, when the village is profoundly incapable of doing anything of the sort.

Of course, I could be wrong. I often am. But I can tell you with certainty that whatever the root causes of bullying may be, Carlos Flores is part of the solution. Watch the video and see for yourself. And if you’d like to see more men like him, doing similar things in other places, do me a favor and share his story. It’s a good one. And imitation is also part of the solution…

Thanks,
Mike

 

Post Navigation