Thanks for the direction and the explanation. I am aware of the concept behind H.R. 1409. I am now convinced that MAT is simply another pro-life radical who believes like Martino in Scranton that labour laws giving Catholic teachers the right to organize is somehow unCatholic and will lead to the system’s demise.

This is simply scare tactics. There is no evidence that Obama’s policies would do such a thing. Many diocesan schools successfully run with teachers’ unions. The real issues of declining students are demographic, social, economic and displeasure with the Church which boils down to bad management.

MAT demonstrates all the ideological biases without any evidence, I guess he picked up on my earlier reference. It is too bad he didn’t take me up on my invitation to express his view. I really would have posted it. Of course I would have invited someone else to critique it.

Code = U.S. Code, which is the statutory compilation of codified laws in the United States. Each state also has its own state code.

I simply couldn’t navigate the site easily. Believe me I tried. I have no idea what you mean by “code” or where to look for it. As to HR 1409, found one list but 1409 wasn’t on it and didn’t know where to turn as an alternative.

The offer stands.

I am not trying to pick a fight. My offer was serious. I am not an American. I do not know you language of governance. Your government’s website made no sense because of that fact.

I simply couldn’t na

If memory serves, Moby Dick was silent. The heroic fulminations were all Ahab’s.

Your point about bad metaphysics not being bad if they produce good social results is a silly one — and an example of the “fallacious informal logic” you attribute (again, without evidence) to the president. If a bad argument convinces someone to do a good thing, you can approve of the good thing they’ve done without approving of the bad argument. Metaphysics is not the handmaiden of ethics: it has its own integrity, its own purpose. Its aim is truth. False metaphysics is bad metaphysics, no matter what its accidental effects. (One may of course think that all metaphysical systems are false, but that itself is a metaphysical claim, which cannot be verified by appeal to ethics.)

Your recollection about what you’ve said on this blog, and what you’ve been told not to say, is another dodge, and not so artful. People criticize President Obama all the time on this blog. When their criticism degenerates into obloquy, we sometimes correct them. If their obloquy becomes routine, we ask them to go elsewhere. Nothing I could say would convince you that such interventions are not political, but nothing you have mentioned demonstrates that your reservations about Obama’s philosophical tendencies are not welcome at dotCommonweal.

Since you’re not into wasting time, it was good of you to hunt down that definition of postmodernism from Professor PBS. I object to none of it. And no, in fact, I don’t think that definition applies to Obama. You say he’s guilty of bad logic (and then refuse to offer examples because you’re sure examples wouldn’t satisfy me, even though those are what I asked for — how well you know me!) But post-modernism, according to the definition you yourself furnish, is not about bad logic; it’s about believing that logic is just an entirely conventional set of rules that tells us nothing final about “the mind,” much less the world. In this sense, postmodernism is really just a new variation on a very old philosophical theme: skepticism. In his speech at Notre Dame, President Obama again and again referred to the common good. Now you may think his conception of the common good is superficial, or you may just disagree with it, but the important point here is that real postmodernists don’t believe in a common good, since they believe that human beings have nothing essential in common except their radical contingency. Again, when the president said that the prolife position was irreconcilable with the prochoice position, he wasn’t being postmodern; he was simply observing a hard fact: if prolifers are right, prochoicers are wrong, and vice versa. There is no way to reformulate the disagreement that will simply make it disappear. If he had said there’s no way to know who’s right — or that it doesn’t matter who’s right — that would have been postmodern. But he didn’t say these things, or anything like them.

I have to admit that I don’t see him as an outstanding example of post-modernist thought. But maybe there are aspects that I’m not thinking of.

Too me, he seems to be a liberal Protestant (and perhaps that’s not always mutually exclusive of post-modernism). But that’s just an off-the-cuff assessment on my part.

Re: constructive/conciliatory engagement between the pro-life and pro-choice camps: David G., would you say Notre Dame’s extending of the invitation, and the President’s acceptance, as well as the content of the speech itself, is one example of such constructive engagement? Granted, I’m not sure if that engagement leads anywhere. (2) Is the President’s joint committee, or discussion group, or whatever it is, another example?

At any rate, it is incumbent on the President, as the holder of the office, the leader of the party that controls the executive and legislative branches, and as the representative / defender / champion of the legal status quo, to make the conciliatory “first move”. Perhaps the ND speech and the joint committee are that first move. Personally, I’d like to see it move to the level of legislation, such as the PWSA. And I agree with David Cloutier that the nomination of Justice Souter’s replacement will be important, too. A third important area is more latitude given within the Democratic Party itself to the pro-life agenda. In all three of these areas, though, clearly it is up to the President to make that first gesture toward common agreement.

If he does so, he will find many pro-life advocates of good will, including the Catholic Bishops, ready to engage him constructively. At the same time, there would be political risk/cost for him: he would surely take heat from his own political base. Istm he has shown some willingness to do this already, although not on life issues.

“the point of fact the pro-life forces are ascending. And this makes sense because as soon as you move the abortion debate away from the rights arena (where the pro-choice side is stronger politically) and into the moral and spiritual arena (where the pro-life side is stronger) we move closer to “common ground”.
This means to me that the pursuit of law change is futile because the codifying of moral and spiritual notions is the problem in our democratic secular society. .Pro-life needs to win and is winning on the field of values… law change is not going to happen..

Regarding your Federalism comments, yes, I could not a agree with you more. These are indeed tragic times for Federalists.

It is difficult to assess the degree to which his (or anybody’s) statecraft mirror Catholic thinking since there are so many issues that the Church itself is sorting out.

1. The Church’s relationship with the Modern world.
2. Religious Freedom/freedom of conscience.
3. Democracy.

All of these issues were addressed at the Second Vatican Council whose legacy and ultimate interpretation is still in process.

I think that obviously abortion can never be understood other than what it is – violence and a falling away from life. At issue is how to respond from a social, cultural and legal perspective and on that point there simply is no consensus by which to craft a workable legislative solution. I agree with Fr. Imbelli in another post that in point of fact the pro-life forces are ascending. And this makes sense because as soon as you move the abortion debate away from the rights arena (where the pro-choice side is stronger politically) and into the moral and spiritual arena (where the pro-life side is stronger) we move closer to “common ground”.

I note that Obama has been the first prominent official, as far as I recall, who framed abortion as a moral and spiritual issue. He explicitly stated that pro-choice advocates make a mistake when they focus on only the one side of that question.

Ultimately though I think it is a mistake to invest in the presidency the moral weight that it has been given in modern times. It is almost like an elected monarch with the whole divine right of kings or quasi- religious status owed to the position.

The US framers were correct, I think, that the government that governs least governs best. The Church simply needs to embrace this as a political principle but I don’t think that she is quite there yet. And this points of the fundamental problem for Catholics in public life and church doctrine – the relationship between Church and state. This is a debate that has been happening since the time of Augustine and slightly before.

However, as Cardinal Ratzinger once noted the church is moving into a pre-Constantinian phase. Pretty hard to dislodge almost 1700 years worth of history regarding Caesar.

Anyway, I scanned your first link and see nothing in it that is a direct threat to Catholic schools unless making the public system better is seen as a threat. It is all just so much more of the same.

As for the calendar/labour link…it didn’t work but I found it but I didn’t find HR1409.

I’ll tell you what. If you write a piece presenting your thesis that this administration’s education initiatives will hurt Catholic education in the USA, I will post it at the Spiritans’ blog on Catholic education.

I would prefer you real name and some bio to give it credibility.then maybe I can learn something too.
John Borst, editor, Tomorrow’s Trust: A Review of Catholic of Education