text:
So's Your Mother
A number of commenters on our brief, initial response to the bishops statement Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, accused Commonweal of being partisan for warning that the bishops statement and initiative run the risk of making the church appear to be aligned with one political party. For expressing concerns about partisan entanglement, Commonweal is accused of being partisan. That is a tiresome rhetorical tactic as well as a misreading of the magazines position. If our critics remain skeptical of Commonweals motives and unpersuaded by our arguments, we urge them to read a letter to the editor in the May issue of First Things from noted First Amendment scholar Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia. Laycock represented the church in the recent Hasanna-Tabor case, winning a resounding affirmation from the Supreme Court of the right of religious bodies to determine who is or isnt a minister. In responding to an article by O. Carter Snead (subscribers only) attacking the Obama administration, Laycock sets the record straight by noting that the president has been bad on some religious-liberty issues but very good on others. And it is dangerous to religious liberty to see it as a political club with which to beat up the other side. As we argue in our latest editorial (Partisan Dangers), and Laycock warns in his letter, Religious liberty is in danger of becoming just another left-right political issue, and if that happens, the cause is lost. Laycocks letter is well worth reading in its entirety.At National Review online, George Weigel, who has been known to have the ear of influential bishops, has responded to Commonweals cautions about partisan entanglement by claiming the following: Would that we had two political parties that honored religious freedom in full. But we dont. And this argument will not be resolved at some mythical 50-yard line where all of us learn to just get along. Someone is going to win this debate over the future of civil society, and someone is going to lose it.No one could accuse George Weigel of ever wasting his time at the 50-yard line in either religion or politics, although he has on more than a few occasions mistaken failure for mission accomplished. But if Weigels call to battle and demand for unconditional surrender is in fact the view of the bishops, we fear their cause is already lost.
About the Author
Paul Baumann is the editor of Commonweal.
57 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Thank you. This document and issue is spiraling somewhere and I fully expect some pastors are going to cross the proverbial line of quasi-endorsements and then it will be the question of tax exemption revoked. I recently read George Weigel's diatribe against Jimmy Carter in our dioscesan paper and wrote to say that this manner of attack -- insult and sarcasm and arrogance - is not worthy of a so-called respected journlist. Has the present climate caused us all to expect that clever insult is better than reason and respect? I know we have examples from the nation's earliest days that are far worse, but it seems like we're steadily running downhill in intelligent arguments. Exccpet here, of course!
Sadly, the whole "GOP is all about religious liberty" is as fallacious as many other drives of the "right" within the Church. It ignores all the time when those of the GOP oppose religious liberty, when those of the "right" have worked to hinder it (all those attacking Muslim liberties are one example, but of course, all the anti Native American policies, all the state-run policies which are similar to the HHS established by Republicans, etc). It is always "We are right, even when we do that which we claim is bad." It really seems as if this kind of diatribe is written by people who want to fail so as to have another perpetual issue to bring up.
My sense is that Weigel is essentially correct in his assessment of the lay of the land: We are at one of those crossroads Americans periodically find themselves at re the definition of "religious liberty," and one POV will prevail over another. The U.S. has historically wrestled with what "religious liberty" actually entails: Prayer in school, rights of conscience for nurses and doctors re abortion, whether mind-altering (illegal) substances can be used in traditional religious ceremonies, whether the Amish can get out of the draft, etc. etc.These debates will continue so long as we have religious diversity.
JeanIt is much more than that. The Native Americans found, until Jimmy Carter (that's right, Carter) all kinds of religious practices of theirs were outright forbidden in the US. This is not just the question of peyote but rituals like the Sun Dance and the Sweat Lodge. In this regard, I do not think Weigel is correct, because the argument being used is really on a question of indirect compliance with evil, a question which really is not a religious liberty issue, because religions have all long realized there will be such in order to have any relationship with the state. What I see is a mask for control. "We don't like X, so you must make sure X doesn't happen. And we are a religion. So if you make X happen, you violate religious liberty." That argument doesn't hold water -- for, as many others have pointed out, religious tradition 1 and 2 will have complete opposite views of X. One will have their liberty "violated" if one thinks of religious liberty along those lines. And indeed, this is what I find problematic with the bishops -- they are acting like there is a demand for actions (to force contraceptives on women) instead of allowing for those actions in our society. As St Thomas Aquinas showed with prostitution, we might not agree with certain acts, but sometimes society is better to allow such acts than not. Was St Thomas against religious liberty by allowing prostitution? Following the bishop's logic, it would seem he is. In other words, "religious liberty" is itself a shell game. That's the problem with this debate and why I find it troubling and why I find it important to keep pointing out that experts on this subject (from a theological/religious studies point of view) are not involved with the discussions from the bishops. They are ignoring history and basic moral theology and making outrageous exaggerations as to the problem we are facing. Yes, I think it would be better if the HHS police was revised. But I think the question of "religious liberty" isn't so central to the policy itself, and it is not as if the HHS and Obama are seeking to create a war against Catholics (as so many are saying).
"Would that we had two political parties that honored religious freedom in full."Neitehr party does and our entire system fo governemtn doesn't either. As a result the bishops are bound to lose that debate.As Jean Raber notes, there is a historical tension regarding just how much religious freedom will be permitted in a pluralistic and secular society. I don't think the Catholic bishops realize how much religious freedom is circumscribed and who makes that decision. (Hint: it's not the religious organization.) Despite Weigel's claim, it's not a black and white issue.
One of the commenters expressing some relatively strong disagreement with the editorial is one of its own regular bloggers: Robert Imbelli. The other is a well-regarded blogger not known for brandishing partisan shrillness: Charles Camosy. I don't think either one of those people are easily paintable as Weigel-esque. The same goes, I respectfully submit, for those commenters at Mirror of Justice, particularly Rick Garnett who is a lay consultant to the bishops' committee that produced the document, and has written extensively on both the jurisprudence and policy developments. But nothing gets some Catholics lathered up more than the words "George Weigel".SO I guess this means it's destined to become a "my expert versus your expert" battle. But it strikes me as short-sighted to try to paint the critiques of the editorial as just so much partisan blather itself.
I read the Weigel article about Jimmie Carter. It's the rudest, nastiest thing I've ever read on the net. It's time for conservatives to invite Weigel out of their in-group.
For the past several election cycles, I have observed the following pattern:1. The Democratic Party and/or Democratic politicians stake out positions contrary to Catholic teaching.2. Bishops come out against those positions.3. Commonweal and similar publications express concern that the bishops statements will be perceived as partisan.I have tired of this particular dance, and will no longer play my part in arguing against it. You are who your record says you are, regardless of whatever the lastest thing George Weigel or Bill Donohue or whoever has said.
JohnWhat I have observed is1. Republicans do something for a long time2. Some Democrat does something similar, all hell breaks loose3. The nuances of the Democrats are ignored, the history behind the decisions are ignored, idealized grounds are staked out -- but only when dealing with Democrats. The Republicans are still capable of doing the same thing (HHS mandate vs what Romney did; the health care mandate vs the Heritage Foundation's plan for health care reform; religious liberty vs Scalia; etc). Sorry, as long as it is all "The Democrats are evil" the real story is not being discussed. As I have said many times, what I see going on now is the consequence of history, where the social structures set up often by those of the GOP are now coming to roost. And like usual, the Republicans ignore their relationship with the problem. Think of how much of the debt coming up during the Obama administration came from Bush policies which put the cost of the polices off until Bush was no longer president. Suddenly, all that Obama inherited is Obama's fault. The same comes in play here. Look to the way religious liberty has played out the last few decades -- especially by those of the right. Then you will begin to realize the context from which we exist today. The Constitution has never been interpreted the way people want to interpret today. Never. Ask the Mormons, the JW's, the Native American, the followers of many so-called "cults," and the like. Religious liberty has always been seen within a context; it is not a free for all as the current discussion is trying to make it.
Suppose the wife of a presidential candidate reported that women aren't interested in contraception or abortion. This wife would be bearing news that the U.S. bishops think, and certianly hope is untrue.Then suppose a woman in the other party said that wife is no authority, that she never held a real job -- and that a kerfluffle resulted. Whose side would we expect the bishops and those who speak in their name (with or without portfolio) -- the wife who contradicts what they say and hope is true, or the woman who disagrees with the wife?The question might be interesting if we didn't already know which woman is an R and which is a D. But knowing which is which, answers the question. Which raises some interesting questions about how intellectual decisions are reached in political America.
HK,The context of this discussion was the USCCB's statement on religious liberty, and the Commonweal editorial response to it.That statement may be worthy of criticism, but "The Democrats are evil" is not an apt summary of it, particularly in a post pleading for nuance.These threats to religious liberty are either or real or they are not. However much debt George W. Bush racked up is irrelevant. I understand it can be frustrating to have to account for your own side's sins when it seems like the other side does not have to, but that's life.I don't give a damn whose fault it is. Maybe I wasn't paying close attention before. Shame on me. But that doesn't mean we all have to shut up now.
TB,Can you please point me to a bishop's statement taking a side in the Ann Romney - Hillary Rosen tempest last week?
Religious liberty? Amish fathers were jailed for not sending their kids for religious reasons to high school. Millions of other parents were NOT jailed for NOT sending their children to high schools in the inner cities.
JohnYou made it an issue of "Democrats" staking out a position. That's dishonest. You made it partisan just by that. And the whole discussion of what is going on now can't take place if we ignore what preceded it, and the role of the GOP in creating the situation. Basically, your claim was "Democrats staked out on evil position." That is what you just did.
A number of commenters on our brief, initial response to the bishops statement Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, accused Commonweal of being partisan for warning that the bishops statement and initiative run the risk of making the church appear to be aligned with one political party. For expressing concerns about partisan entanglement, Commonweal is accused of being partisan. However tiresome that argument may be, it rings true enough that it obviously hit a nerve. Look, if the bishops produced a document specifically on immigration laws, most of the criticisms would be aimed at Republicans. That's not because the bishops are anti-Republican, but because it is objectively true that most of the laws that unfairly restrict immigration come from Republicans. A Republican who tried to dismiss the bishops as partisan would be engaged in an act of projection. The same is going on here. After all, there's nothing in the bishops' statement that is objectively partisan at all -- it complains of Republican threats to religious liberty too (immigration laws). But of course, one can deduce from it that most of the governmental threats to Catholics' religious liberty right now proceed from Democrats. That's because it is objectively true that Democrats are more hostile to the robust exercise of the Catholic faith. The true partisan is someone who tries to dismiss religious liberty claims out of fear as to how it would affect the Democrats' electability.
HK,My statement was that, in each election cycle, the Democratic Party and/or Democratic politicians staked out positions contrary to Church teachings. The specific examples I had in mind were John Kerry's support for legalized abortion and embryonic research during the 2004 election, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden's comments on abortion and Catholicism during the 2008 election, and the HHS mandate in this session.These were the statements that brought about criticism from the bishops, and expressions of concern about perceived partisanship from Commonweal.I don't see the dishonesty in claiming that:1. These positions are contrary to Church teachings.2. These positions were staked out by the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians.Nor do I think that, in these particular cases, the GOP played a large role in leading the Democratic Party or these politicians to these particular position, so I don't think the honesty requires importing some GOP context.If I had to name a culprit, I would say it is that the Democratic Party relies on groups like Planned Parenthood and Emily's List for support, and thus feels the need to being its campaign by pandering to them, similar to how the GOP candidates have pandered to some of their less savory elements. In neither case should Catholics keep quiet about it.--My point is that we don't seem to be in a better place than we were in 2004 on any account, so something's going to have to change. For my part, I'm not going to repeat the role I played in 2004 and 2008, and spend more time in prayer and less time in comment threads.
In light of the anti-abortion zealotry of conservative religionists, in light of the anti-contraception zealotry of conservative religionists, in light of the anti-same-sex-marriage zealotry of conservative religionists, in light of the teaching-of-evolutionary-theory-in-public-schools zealotry of certain conservative religionists, and in light of the anti-science zealotry of certain conservative religionists, I find it very hard to imagine why Democrats in the Democratic party would want to rally around freedom of religion.For it sure appears that conservative religionists have been exercising their freedom of religion and their freedom of speech as American citizens in the public arena over the last four decades or so.It also appears that Republican politicians and the Republican party have been paying lip-service to the positions espoused by conservative religionists as a way to get them to vote Republican, as many conservative religionists have done over the last three decades or so.
A fine post folowed by a dreadful thread of partisan comments.see the thread below on blogging - it just gioes on.
Is Commonweal NOT partisan? Not proud to be liberal?I've been under the impression for over fifty years that Commonweal was liberal. I thought Commonweal and NCR were the sole surviving liberal Catholic publications. (Since the slapping down of America.)
TF,The beneficiaries of many civil liberties (freedom from search, right to a fair and speedy trial right to a lawyer, etc.) are those who are criminally accused, who in many cases are in fact criminals.I don't think observing this is a valid reason not to rally around these rights, just because they happen to benefit people we don't like.I would think Democrats would want to rally around freedom of religion because they are basically decent people who recognize it as a fundamental principle of our country. And one that leads to true institutional diversity.
JohnOf course, Bush staking out embryonic stem cell research and bragging about it in 2004 is ignored by you. QED.
One question I have for both the GOP and for those bishops who are against the mandate as a violation of religious liberty is whether this policy violates the First Amendment as it would be understood in 1789. The Amendment was a response to centuries of religious war and disenfranchisement of minority religions in both Europe and America, and was meant to protect the free expression of conscience for both believers and unbelievers both in public assembly and private discourse. I think that when they thought of religious liberty, they were thinking of persecution that resulted in arrests, burnings, censorship and other overt attacks on the religious character when they were crafting an Amendment to make sure that all religious people would be essentially safe in the profession of their belief (or unbelief, as it were). I just find it hard to accept the premise that indirectly participating in a health plan that supports the dissemination of birth control is on the same level as the levying of taxes on a dissenting church, the prosecution of minority faiths in court, or the denial of office based on one's religion. Not to mention the fact that this law can be construed as giving non-religious employees rights that happen to clash with our own and not as an exclusive attack against the Church or those of the evangelicals. I just find this characterization of the mandate as an all out assault on religious liberty to be hyperbolic and an insult to those who truly cannot express their faiths in countries less religiously tolerant than ours. This to me is at least part of the reason why I find it difficult to support the bishops in their campaign, and why it is easier for me characterize it as partisan, because it does not seem to square with other more dire examples of both historical and contemporary persecutions. Somehow I imagine the souls killed by the Emperor Julian must be ruefully wishing they had encountered such threats to their liberties.
Looking at Weigel, Garnett, Dolan and the bishops, etc. Obama and the democrats cannot be any happier. It used to be the Democrats who would self destruct. I know that those at the EPPC are anxious to get their Washington jobs back, and the bishops want funds with no strings, along with the power and the patronage. But this is ridiculous.
"I would think Democrats would want to rally around freedom of religion because they are basically decent people who recognize it as a fundamental principle of our country. And one that leads to true institutional diversity."Generally, this would be true, but "religous freedom" requires some definition. "Religous freedom" is not a "blank check." Unfortunately, the bishops seem to be using it as a blank check. That check won't be cashed. What the bishops are claiming is that their idiosyncratic determination of a close moral question trumps all other religious and non-religious determinations of the same question and only their determination is to be legally protected. That's not religious freedom--it's theocracy prohibited by the first amendment.
Gerelyn, have you ever seen U.S. Catholic?
"In light of the anti-abortion zealotry of conservative religionists, in light of the anti-contraception zealotry of conservative religionists, in light of the anti-same-sex-marriage zealotry of conservative religionists, in light of the teaching-of-evolutionary-theory-in-public-schools zealotry of certain conservative religionists, and in light of the anti-science zealotry of certain conservative religionists, I find it very hard to imagine why Democrats in the Democratic party would want to rally around freedom of religion.For it sure appears that conservative religionists have been exercising their freedom of religion and their freedom of speech as American citizens in the public arena over the last four decades or so.It also appears that Republican politicians and the Republican party have been paying lip-service to the positions espoused by conservative religionists as a way to get them to vote Republican, as many conservative religionists have done over the last three decades or so."--------"Looking at Weigel, Garnett, Dolan and the bishops, etc. Obama and the democrats cannot be any happier. It used to be the Democrats who would self destruct. I know that those at the EPPC are anxious to get their Washington jobs back, and the bishops want funds with no strings, along with the power and the patronage. But this is ridiculous."And we're quickly off into never-never land.
Did you ever notice how when people walk back from something they've written, they like to retroactively characterize it as either "brief", or "initial", or both? I only wish it had been characterized as such from the get-go, so I would then have known it was really a very rough first draft, and not something to consider too seriously.
Hi, Angela:Yes, I've seen it. Not for many years. Is it liberal? (I know of a few Catholic periodicals that I consider liberal, but they have a very limited circulation -- mainly to alumnae/i of Catholic colleges or to friends of religious congregations.)
It's telling that the Commonweal editorials don't quote a paragraph or even a sentence or phrase from the bishops' statement that is in their view partisan. And I imagine the editors scrutinized the statement very closely. Instead of offensive statements we are warned about potential perceptions. All of which, in my view, indicates that the bishops did a pretty good job in writing the document.The E.J. Dionne critique of the administration's health care fumblings is apparently within bounds, if I read my Commonweal editorials correctly. An acceptable critique, per Commonweal, goes like this: Obama, or perhaps it was only his advisors, needlessly embarrassed Sr. Carol and other Catholic progressives. The administration's initial ruling was worse than a crime, worse than a mistake, it was "tone-deaf." Fortunately it can be easily fixed by encouraging insurance companies to provide free contraceptives.But whenever bishops warn of larger dangers not yet seen by Dionne et al they run the risk of perhaps possibly being perceived by at least some observers as more than a little bit too partisan, which would be among the worst political offenses imaginable. Thus Commonweal has created aperceiver's veto, which like a heckler's veto, is gratuitously given precedence over any vigorous defense of religious freedom, letters to the editor if First Things notwithstanding.
"Laycocks letter is well worth reading in its entirety."I fully agree. As is Snead's response in the same issue. A very civil exchange without a trace of "So's Your Mother."
"Religious liberty has always been seen within a context ..."Yes, I think that's true, Henry. And that was my original point: that "religious liberty" is redefined as more groups come to the table asking for liberty to practice what they believe their religions dictate, particularly when those dictates run afoul of the state.I also think that what is construed as "religious liberty" changes, to some extent, based on public opinion or social norms at a given time. Before World War I, it would have been considered idiotic to give pacifists any kind of leeway on the ground of religious beliefs. Now it's not. In these various clashes between church and state, somebody comes out a "winner," as Weigel says. And that's the only thing I think he's right about. He is conveniently framing the "conflict" as one between Republican and Democrat. I refer anyone who wants to understand Weigel's insidious argument style to Peter Steinfels' excellent deconstruction of Weigel's treatment of Cardinal Bernardin that appeared last year in the CWeal pages.
I don't think it is even close when it comes to the question of whether the bishops are so off base in making HHS a religious liberty issue. How the bishops and people like Weigel, Garnett and Co. make the imposition of a health law a matter of religious liberty really is a fantasy if one examines the matter closely. In a country which allows witchcraft, for which the church has had people killed, it would be really laughable if it were not so polarizing that the bishops are making a war out of this. I suggest that the religious liberty, of all those who are employed by the church or are convinced that the bishops are infallible and even those dissenting Catholics who would welcome inspiring leadership from the bishops, are infringed upon by this stance of the USCCB. So all the people who blindly follow the bishops, wherever they meander, really have less religious liberty today than those who practice witchcraft. Think about it. They certainly do not have the "freedom of the Children of God" which Paul the Apostle writes about, but rather they are slaves of the bishops and the call to them the bishops might make if they divert from the party line. It is akin to the actions of John Paul II who propounded for liberty for everyone except those who are inside the Catholic church.
Bill,It's clear that you disagree with the bishops and those who support the Bishops' view on the HHS mandate (among other things). But is it really too much to ask that you accord these views a bit more respect than asserting that we "blindly follow" the bishops' "meander[ings]" into some kind of (in your view) religious slavery?You have falsely asserted that Rick Garnett is associated with the EPCC. He is not. He is employed as a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Additionally, he has a law degree from Yale and clerked for a term for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Yet, in your view, his views are reducible to the assertion that he is doing no more than simply pimping for a new job in a Republican administration. Certainly, whatever you think of his views, they should be accorded a bit more respect, no?
"I recently read George Weigels diatribe against Jimmy Carter in our dioscesan paper and wrote to say that this manner of attack insult and sarcasm and arrogance is not worthy of a so-called respected journlist."What about the journalistic and Catholic integrity of said diocesan rag (and most of them are just that - rags. Check out the Oakland Catholic Voice and San Francisco Catholic for good examples of bad rags)?
HK,1. My claim, which I thought was uncontroversial, was that the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates had staked out positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Noting that Bush's position on embryonic research was also contrary to Catholic teaching, or that I failed to note it, does nit refute that.2. I acknowledge that Bush's s actions and positions on embryonic research were contrary to Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, I think it was fairly clear in 2004 that if embryonic research was your issue, on either side, which candidate you should support. It was discussed extensively during the debates. http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=4078320&m=1 I think it's within the pale to, 8 years later, to summarize their positions as Kerry in favor and Bush opposed, even if that doesn't capture every nuance if their positions.L3. But if we accept that you're right, I'm curious what you think you gave proven with your QED . That U am some kind of hypocrite for noting Democratic divergence from Church teaching without also noting Republican divergences? If that "victory" makes you happy, you can have and enjoy it.But I'm not sure what that does for discourse or truth. The Democratic position on embryonic research is and was unacceptable. We can work to change that, or hide behind the excuse that the GOP isn't much better. And Republicans can do the sane thing by saying the Democrats are so much worse on abortion.And we can all congratulate ourselves that we're not like those hypocrites over there and never change anything.I think the world deserves better.
Jeff, I appreciate that you want to communicate on some points. You can appreciate that I, like many others, was in that mileiu, which I believe you and others are in, which sacralized the clergy and bishops so much that objectivity was lost. Certainly only God can assess us completely. But I have been there. Vatican II showed us how the so called "Triumph of Christianity" was really the demise of Christianity. Yet that view prevailed, at least officially for 1700 years. There are compelling and serious issues with the bishops. The paradox is that they should not be followed when they go against the Church of the Crucified Jesus which was the center of Paul's ministry and should be ours. Origen. amd others, did not understand that this Jesus came before dogma and domination. Today there is no excuse for not following our conscience. We will not be excused for following the bishops over our conscience. As for Garnett he admitted he was associated with the body that put the Bishop's declaration together. I realize my wording might make it look like I was associating him with the EPCC. At the same time Garnett, as I sees it loses his customary powerful reasoning when he talks about issues with the bishops. There are alarm bells which go off with him, as with several others here with their sudden lack of reasoning and objectivity when it comes to issues with the hieararchy.
Jean Raber 04/17/2012 - 4:12 pm SUBSCRIBERMy sense is that Weigel is essentially correct in his assessment of the lay of the land: We are at one of those crossroads Americans periodically find themselves at re the definition of religious liberty, and one POV will prevail over another.The U.S. has historically wrestled with what religious liberty actually entails: Prayer in school, rights of conscience for nurses and doctors re abortion, whether mind-altering (illegal) substances can be used in traditional religious ceremonies, whether the Amish can get out of the draft, etc. etc.These debates will continue so long as we have religious diversity.
Well said. Yes, and that's very good. May the debates continue and thrive.
John McG Yes, you are trying to make it as if it were a Democrat thing and they were "staking out" positions contrary to the Church's teaching. However, by saying this while ignoring the same thing happening with the GOP, and often the same things being complained about coming from Democrats, makes a false representation of what is going on. That's all.
"May the debates continue and thrive."Amen. These debates get pretty intense because they all have a whiff of Gott-mit-uns self-righteousness on the one hand and keep-your-religious-nut-ideas-to-yourself self-righteousness on the other. The theater these debates generate always generates sideshows like the Billy Graham Crusade, the PTL Club, and "Elmer Gantry," and drama queens like Madelyn Murray O'Hair and Pat Robertson. And what American doesn't eat that stuff up!?But for all our love of media theater and hype, I think most Americans care deeply about the extents of religious freedom and toleration (if not always religion itself). When we don't get agitated about religious ideas, we can say we've truly lost our national character.
FWIW - Laycock's point that the Obama Administration has actually been pretty good on protecting religious liberty is one that needs to be made. That doesn't exempt the administration from just criticism when it errs, but it's important to have an accurate context.
Instead of this bishop-bashing, should we not instead congratulate our episcopacy on its recent conversion to a belief in religious liberty? To quote the USCCB document, "As Catholics, we know that our history has shadows too in terms of religious liberty, when we did not extend to others the proper respect for this first freedom. But the teaching of the Church is absolutely clear about religious liberty. . . "One might quibble a bit and say that those "shadows" include century after century of persecution in which the Church has been fully engaged. Or that while the teaching of the Church about religious liberty has indeed been "absolutely clear," by and large until very recently that teaching has sturdily maintained that religious liberty (at least in the sense the USCCB document uses it) is been a very bad idea indeed. See the various treatments by, for instance, Gregory XVI (Mirari vos), or Pius IX, and others. Or, if that is simply ancient history, one might examine the more recent treatment of John Courtney Murray by his ecclesiastical antagonists prior to Vatican II.I will leave it up to the bishops and their theologians to consider how their current views mesh with the unchanging magisterial teachings of the past, and merely extend to them a heartfelt Welcome, as they join the rest of us in our views of religious liberty.
"There are alarm bells which go off with him, as with several others here with their sudden lack of reasoning and objectivity when it comes to issues with the hieararchy."Apparently, you believe ANY agreement with "the hierarchy" entails a sudden lack of reasoning and objectivity. Ever stop to think that maybe, instead of taking his cue from his religious slavery, it's he and other like-minded well-qualified lay Catholics who are advising and informing the bishops? That certainly seems like a reasonable possibility, and one envisioned by Vatican II to boot. Not to mention it certainly assumes a more well-balanced and good faith understanding of many of our fellow Catholics.But since you view anyone agreeing with the bishops as enslaved to an intellectual conformity and laziness (their academic and professional expertise and training notwithstanding), I'm certain you will preemptively dismiss any progressive Catholics from seizing on the letters published yesterday by certain of the USCCB committee chairs criticizing the Republican budget. After all, if they agree with the bishops on THAT opinion,too, they would likewise be suffering from a "lack of reasoning and objectivity when it comes to issues with the hieararchy", right?
anyone agreeing with the bishops as enslavedI'd also like to remember Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." and our apostolic tradition.
Tradition, yes. Truth? ?????
" --- the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates had staked out positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching."In a pluralistic society, the role of political parties and government in general is not to adhere to certain partisan confessional positions. The role is to foster the greatest good (you can argue over what THAT is til kingdom comes) for the greatest number of people, as codified by elected legislators and validated/invalidated by courts of law in the case of controversies.The Catholic Church's role is to teach what it believes to be the truth and try to persuade the greatest number of people that its teachings are indeed a truth worthy of adoption.
Nicholas C. --Wittgenstein distinguishes *saying* something and *showing* something. The bishops say they believe in religious freedom, but they show, by essentially ignoring the religious/civil rights of non-Catholics, that they believe their own rights are absolute. They simply don't seem to understand that honorable people can honestly disagree with them. Such hysterical reaction ("Hitler", "Stalin") can only make rational discussion with them more difficult.
"The bishops say they believe in religious freedom, but they show, by essentially ignoring the religious/civil rights of non-Catholics, that they believe their own rights are absolute."- On what possible logical basis do you deduce this conclusion?"They simply dont seem to understand that honorable people can honestly disagree with them. "Respectfully, it's not the bishops who are frothing about "zealots" and "slavery."
Jeff, but it is the bishops who are frothing about an assault on religious liberty by the administration in ways that go beyond simply this mandate controversy. Most of us do not see everyday evidence that our religious liberties are being threatened, i.e. we are still allowed to worship as we please without interference by the state. It is true that the bishops ability to reject participation in what it calls an intrinsic evil is being limited, but to call this an example of an all out assault on religious liberty is simply hyperbole. One side froths as well the other, from what I can observe.
Nicholas Clifford: It was US bishops who defended J.C. Murray when he was silenced by the Holy Office; it was they who insisted that the issue of religious freedom remain on the conciliar agenda; it was because of them that the text was considered "the American document" at Vatican II; and without them the conciliar declaration on religious freedom would never have passed. Defense of religious freedom is not something new to the U.S. bishops.
Yes, of course you're right; it was indeed the American bishops who came to the defense of Murray. You obviously know the chronology here far better than I do, but did the bishops rise to his defense when his first articles, in the early 50s, aroused the ire of Father Fenton, Ottaviani, and others of that sort? Or when Murray was forbidden, in 1954, to publish on the subject of religious freedom, and Rome quashed one of his article? Perhaps so, and if so, good for them. But I was under the impression that it was only later, as preparations for Vatican II began to get going, that the bishops overrode Ottaviani, so to speak, and in 1962 insisted that Murray be brought on board.
JAK --How many of the bishop-members of this committee were members of Vatican II? In fact, are there more than a dozen of the VII bishopsleft? Aren't a big majority of current American bishops JP II appointees? And if so, might not this have something to do with their paranoia about this so-called "war"? (OK, so the last question was rhetorical.)
"The bishops say they believe in religious freedom, but they show, by essentially ignoring the religious/civil rights of non-Catholics, that they believe their own rights are absolute.- On what possible logical basis do you deduce this conclusion?"Jeff --Either the bishops respect the religious rights of all, some, or none. They do respect their own rights, but they ignore the rights of non-Catholics (as well as Catholics who agree with the non-Catholics) when they neglect to respect the religious rights of non-Catholics to equal protection under the HHS mandate. Since there are only two classes involved -- Catholics' rights and non-Catholics' rights -- and the bishops show no respect for the others' rights, it follows that they consider their own rights to be the only ones with real value. The rights of the others can be ignored. That's pretty absolute.
Ann: No bishops who were at Vatican II are still heads of dioceses. Most of today's bishops were appointed by John Paul II, a fierce defender of religious freedom whose teaching on the subject went far beyond Vatican II's Declaration. The bishops have made it clear that they think the threat they perceive does or will affect the religious freedom of all people and groups. Two questions: 1) Is there a right to contraception? 2) Does anyone have a right that someone else pay for one's contraceptives?Nicholas: When I reviewed the proposals for an agenda for Vatican II, of the bishops who raised the issue of religious freedom, all but one proposed Murray's position; that one basically agreed with Murray's critics. Murray's silencing was never made public, and so you will not find public defenses of him, but there is indirect evidence of the respect Murray enjoyed among the bishops, one of whom was Cardinal Spellman, who secured Murray's appointment as an official conciliar peritus in 1963.
As I read these blogs, I continue to find myself confused about 'rights' and arguments about conflicts among 'rightsholders'. It seems to me that 'rights' are inherent to the human person, unalienable to use the term from the Declaration of Independence. But because humans are social, the way those rights are satisfied necessarily involve interactions with with other rights possessing human persons. So lets assume, just for arguments sake, there is a human right to contraception. To me, the question now becomes, how will society satisfy that human right? In other words, what method or rule will we put in place to bring about that human right. But here's the critical piece, in my mind anyway, the method or rule chosen is not itself a human right. Particularly when one can posit myriad other ways to satisfy the same human right. So in the case of the HHS regulations in particular, my assessment is that our Catholic organizations want the human right not to do wrong, while the HHS regs simply one method among many to satisfy a perceived human 'need' for contraception.What I think also follows from my thought process, is that arguing over a method to satisfy a human right is necessarily partisan since many alternatives exist and we cannot know which will produce the optimal outcome, while arguing about a human right should never be partisan.
I suspect that if there was a move by my local government to unfairly seize my house via eminent domain, I would object strenuously. I may do so even though I failed to speak up when other localities used eminent domain to seize houses, or even when my local government unfairly seized my own house. Would my objections be more honorable if I had spoken up when it wasn't my particular oxe being gored? Yes, it would. Does my failure to have done so, in itself, mean that my claims of injustice are wrong, or that a valid response to my objections is to say that they must be disingenous because I failed to speak up about the other seizures, or to link my cause with theirs? No.--If the HHS mandated distribution of firearms rather than contraceptives, I don't think it would be disrespecting the rights of non-Catholics to "equal protection" to seek an exemption.
To clarify the above, I am aware that the HHS mandate does not compel Church-based organizations to distribute contraceptives, but to offer insurance programs that cover the cost of them, and realize my phrasing above was a bit imprecise. You can apply the same distancing to my hypothetical firearms benefit.
JAK --Thanks for the history. Can you think offhand of anything JP II said about religious freedom that might be useful in this very knotty controversy? Given that Poland was mainly Catholic and the government was a non-democratic Communist one, he probably didn't have to think very much about possible conflicts between the religious rights of Catholics and those of non-Catholics. So I wouldn't expect much from him on the subject.


text:
Tomato Backpackers Hotel is in the city Center, 5 /10 minutes walking from the central station, the underground... More Info »
We are lucky to be in one of the most beautiful and most elegant areas of the city , Piazza Solferino , in a very... More Info »
Sotto la Mole B&B is near one of the main squares of the city (Piazza Vittorio Veneto) and the Mole Antonelliana, the... More Info »
The Hotel Nizza is located in the heart of the city of Turin, right next to Torino Porta Nuova railway station.... More Info »
Appartamento ristrutturato ideale per un soggiorno giovane ed informale. - 1 camera da letto con letto doppio cm... More Info »
Bella Baita B&B and mountain retreat is more than a room in a small Guesthouse. We offer an authentic Italian alps... More Info »
Politecnico 2 is a Nice furnished apartment. We offer cable TV and coffee. The towels are included. Politecnico 2... More Info »
La terrazza alla ghiacciaia B&B offers 6 bedrooms that could be setted as single, twin, double and triple for a... More Info »
Piperita B&B is located in an historic building in the centre of Turin. The B&B has recently been renovated and... More Info »
We offer a friendly cosy space, where everyone is welcome!. Our services include Biological breakfast and a complete... More Info »
B&B Quadrifoglio is waiting for you with a wa More Info »
Open011 is a part of a touristic project planned by the Municipality of Torino and directed by the Youth and... More Info »
Located in the heart of Turin, 300 metres from Porta Nuova railway station and air terminal, thanks to its convenient... More Info »
The complete renovation in recent years, creating a spacious lobby, a new reception area, the construction of a hall... More Info »
The terrace is composed by two double rooms with a common bathroom, a kitchen, a wide terrace an - upon request - a... More Info »
L'Antico Borgo Bed and Breakfast has many services included in price: Continental breakfast to buffet (milk, tea,... More Info »
A little but confortable in the city centre. Quiet and oldfashion hotel in the most beautiful and central square of... More Info »
Hotel Stauto is the right place where to stay in you fancy an artistic approach to the beautiful city of Turin. Our... More Info »
Budget Accomodations. Turin city 'A Casa Romar ' welcomes you to stay in a warm and friendly family atmosphere.... More Info »
Hotel Italia is a quiet, comfortable place to escape from the pressures of modern life. The hotel has been... More Info »
Video guides, travel podcasts, city maps & free city guides. What to eat, where to stay and things to do and see - our travel guides have it all.Find a guide »
With the sun shining 80% of the time, Miami is the hot spot to go if you want a tropical getaway. It gets over 3,200 hours of sunshine a year, making it one of the top places to...Read more »
We offer the most comprehensive selection of hostels on the internet with over 33,000 great places to stay in 170 countries. The ultimate online resource for hostels everywhere.Find great value hostels »

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I have been reading the book Topics in classical automorphic forms for a while, where I encountered a formula in the middle of Sec 8.6 (p143)
$$F(z;\beta,\gamma)=\frac {i\gamma}{4|\gamma|^4z^2}\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}[i]}\alpha e\biggl(\frac{-|\alpha|^2}{4z|\gamma|^2}+\textrm{Re }\frac{\bar{\alpha}\beta}{\gamma}\biggr),~~~~~~(1)$$ where $$F(z;\beta,\gamma)=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}[i]\atop \alpha\equiv\beta~(\bmod \gamma)}\alpha e(z|\alpha|^2)~~~~~~(2)$$ for any $z\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\textrm{Im }z>0$, $\beta,\gamma\in\mathbb{Z}[i]$ with $\gamma\not=0$.
What we have already known is that, by standard method,
$$\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}[i]}(\alpha+\beta)e(z|\alpha+\beta|^2)=\frac {i}{4z^2}\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}[i]}\alpha e\biggl(\frac{-|\alpha|^2}{4z}+\textrm{Re }\bar{\alpha}\beta\biggr).~~~~~~(3)$$
My problem is that how am I supposed to deal with the congruent condition in the subscription of the summation in $(2)$. Sorry if I've asked something trivial. And thanks for any help!


text:
Capital Punishment Watch, Cont'd--UPDATED
Last night marked another horrific chapter in our nation's practice of capital punishment. In Oklahoma, two executions were scheduled for last night, following a new three-drug protocol. The first drug administered was midazolam, already used as part of a botched execution in Florida. (see my previous post on this topic for pharmacologic details and links.)
About 10 minutes into the first execution, 38-year old Clayton Lockett was declared unconscious by a physician. According to CNN, Lockett sat up and tried to speak 16 minutes into his execution. He was seen to be writhing or convulsing on the gurney, and about 20 minutes into the process, his vein "exploded," executioners said, causing them to halt the process. At that point, guards closed the windows so the witnesses could no longer see what was happening. 43 minutes into the process, Lockett apparetly suffered a massive heart attack and died.
The legal battle centered around a prisoner's right to know the source of the drugs to be used to execute him or her. A stay on Lockett's execution was lifted last week when a judge ruled that there was no such right. After last night's experience, executions are again on hold in OK for at least 2 weeks.
The plan was to render Lockett unconscious with midazolam, then stop his breathing (and all muscular activity) with the paralytic drug vercuronium bromide, then stop his heart with potassium chloride.
What could have gone wrong? Of course, I wasn't there, and can't speak with certainty, but here are two possibilities.
Benzodiazepines like midazolam can rarely have paradoxical effects: a drug that usually renders one deeply sedated and relaxed, and has anti-convulsant properties, can cause agitation, anxiety, aggression, talkativeness, rage, violent behavior, and delirium, often states not recalled by the patient upon recovery. The midazolam dose used for sedation is much lower than that used for execution, but since Mr. Lockett's vein "exploded," it's unclear what dose he actually received, or, from the information given, what his actual state of consciousness was. The effects of midazolam can be reversed with Flumazenil, (a benzodiazepine-receptor antagonist) but did the executioner have a reversal agent on hand? Reversal of midazolam with Flumazenil can cause seizures. When the execution was stopped, efforts were made to resuscitate Lockett, but details aren't clear.
The other possibility is more troubling. According to protocol, after the victim is declared unconscious executioners begin injecting the second two drugs. According to OK Department of Corrections director Robert Patton, the second two drugs were being administered when Lockett began to sit up and attempt to speak. Clearly the paralytic vercuronium had no effect. But what about the potassium bromide?
Potassium chloride is the drug in this cocktail used to stop the heart. It is an acceptable drug for animal euthanasia ONLY in anesthetized animals, and is condemned as inhumane otherwise because of the pain associated with stopping the heart of a conscious animal
Did Lockett experience paradoxical excitation from midazolam, and then suffer a heart attack? Or did OK somehow manage to kill a more-or-less conscious Lockett with the effect of potassium chloride alone, a death condemned by veterinarians as too cruel for livestock?
And when will the US finally come to its senses and stop capital punishment? The moral case against capital punishment is clear. But even if it were morally right for the state to kill its prisoners, it's becoming clearer and clearer that it just can't be done competently.
UPDATE--well, it just gets worse. This from OK department of Corrections timeline, reported in the NYTimes. Apparently after nearly an hour of hunting for a vein, the phlebotomist wound up placing a single line in Lockett's femoral vein. It is standard procedure to have two patent IV's for executions, in case one line blows. (IV catheters can go wrong in a couple ways. Most commonly, the catheter slips out of the vein or was never properly placed to start with--certainly possible in the femoral vein, a deeper and trickier vein to securely place a line in than the usual arm, hand or leg. Veins can rupture, but a slipped or misplaced catheter seems more likely.) For modesty, the injection site was covered when the injection was made. Once Lockett seemed unconscious, the second two drugs were injected, drugs which can be painful if injected outside a vein. Lockett woke up. The executioners apparently DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH DRUGS to complete the process, given the leakage of the first dose, even if they could have found a vein. How can this be true, since a second execution was scheduled for the same night?? And how lacking in basic medical foresight.
This is more than botched--it's a disgrace, a travesty of grand proportion. Utterly, utterly incompetent.
About the Author
Lisa Fullam is professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley. She is the author of The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic (Edwin Mellen Press).
63 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Is there a moral duty to conduct one's work competently, at least when there are grave consequences to another if the work is not done competently? Surely a doctor is thought to have such a duty, and I would have thought also a soldier. At least within the profession, it is the belief of engineers that we are so bound - hence the tradition of the ring in Canadian engineering (widely, though not universaly, extended now in the US, also).
Since Furman v. Georgia (1972) it has been our law that "punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity." (Jusice Brennan for the Court). Distinguishing the severity of punishment from the manner of it application is a distinction, when death is the outcome of the punishment, we cannot sustain: we do not permit drawing-and-quartering or burning at the stake.
Mark L
Perhaps this will remind Christians why they're supposed to be against the death penalty:
As horrible as the condemned man's crimes were—they were horrible (robbery, kidnapping, rape, and murder) and should not be downplayed or forgotten—JP II was nevertheless correct in Evangelium Vitae when he stated that capital punishment is morally wrong except in cases of "absolute necessity," with that term limited to mean "when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society." With the improvements that have been made in penal systems to protect society at large, JP II believed that absolute necessity "cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent." Of course, his comments on capital punishment were part of an encyclical with an overarching theme that life itself is a gospel ("good news") that must be cherished and respected because of its "incomparable worth" and even when that priceless gift is abused by another human being. The perpetrator should be punished for his transgression (life without parole, for example), of course, and while there may be a primal eye-for-an-eye satisfaction for some in the use of capital punishment, state-sanctioned termination of life to punish someone for terminating another life seems a very imperfect lesson plan for imparting respect for human life in general.
This is clearly cruel and unusual punishment, and he should have had a chance to argue this in court.
One would hope that bishops in death penalty states would prohibit Catholics from participating in the practice and excommunicate any who do.
Even a sentence of "life without parole" is inconsistent with any sense of rehabilitation. Any system of criminal justice that does not provide every criminal with some path to rehabilitation effectively denies the freedom that each mentally competent person has to reform and repent. And if a person is deemed to be beyond mental competency, then he or she is beyond experiencing any penal restriction as a consequence of his or her crime. The EU has rightly abolished "life without parole" sentences. So should we.
When the execution was stopped, efforts were made to resuscitate Lockett, but details aren't clear.
My God in heaven. They tried to resuscitate him so they could what? Try it again? Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.
I've been thinking about life without parole as well. Criminality decreases with age, so the justification for imprisoning the average convict goes down as they get older. I understand not wanting the person who is being sentenced to be able to be free again, but that person won't exist twenty years from now. We should let our parole boards make new evaluations about how dangerous they are in the future.
Jean, those were my thoughts, too. It makes absolutely no sense to attempt to resuscitate someone you're trying to kill.
As horrible as the condemned man's crimes were—they were horrible (robbery, kidnapping, rape, and murder) and should not be downplayed or forgotten
We read the gruesome details of Clayton Lockett's execution and in fairness and justice, we should similarly hear the crime that led up to it.
In the Summer of 1999, Clayton Lockett and two accomplices, including a man named Shawn Mathis, were burglarizing a home when they were interrupted by 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman as she dropped off her friend who happened to live there. Neiman put up a fight when Lockett attempted to grab the keys to her new Chevy pickup truck. So the men beat her, wrapped her arms, mouth and legs with duct tape and then Lockett and his cohorts beat up Neiman's friend, as well as another resident of the home and that person's 9-month-old child.
It gets worse.
Neiman and her friends were abducted and driven out to a remote country road. Lockett and his victims waited while Mathis chipped away at the ground, digging a small grave along the road. Neiman was placed in the ditch and Lockett shot her with a sawed off shotgun. But she survived and began pleading for her life. Another shot, but this time the gun jammed. A third shot hit its target.
But Stephanie Neiman was still alive. So Lockett and Mathis buried her anyway. Alive.
One last thing: don't forget Stephanie Neiman. The reason Lockett chose to bury her alive was because she bravely told him that if she were to be set free she would call the police. For that, she was killed and under circumstances arguably more harrowing than Lockett's
I'm against the death penalty but I don't know about abolishing life without parole. Not everyone is capable of being rehabilitated, and I don't hink being older would necessarily make someone harmless.
That's why it is still a life sentence. If someone continues to pose a threat to society, the parole board can deny parole.
Re: George D.'s comment on the heinous and cruel nature of Lockett and Mathis' crime, I don't think that Christian opposition to the death penalty is based on feeling that those accused of such crimes don't deserve their punishment. If in fact they are really guilty as charged, of course they have earned death, and whatever sufferings that go along with it. Christian opposition is more based on our not having the authority over life and death, that this belongs to God. "'Vengeance is mine, I will repay', says the Lord." In life and in death we belong to God. (I wish we would think more seriously about that when it comes to war.) Then here is he question of what we do to ourselves as a society by by state sponsored premeditated killing, which often seems arbitrary in the way it is applied. And God desires the salvation of everyone, and there is at least the chance of repentance and conversion with life in prison. However I think Crystal is right that it is irresponsible to assume that someone is harmless to society and commute a sentence of life without parole.
Lots of people will say he got what he deserved -- the lex talionis.
But note that when we practice the lex talionis we become as evil as those we punish.
An eye for an eye -- a man knocks out someone's eye -- so I in turn coldly, legally, inhumanly blind him in return. Who is the greater criminal here?
Biblical fundamentalism battening on Genesis 9 (Who sheds man's blood, by man let his blood be shed) is one of the foundations of the tenacity of capital punishment in the USA. Another is revenge-thinking, bolstered by victim impact statements.
Oh, I see what you mean - a life sentence can be imposed but if the person is rehabilitated they can be paroled, while life without chance of parole is instead a kind of eternal punishment that doesn't take into account that the person might change for the better.
All this makes me think about God's version of life without parole ... hell :(
I put the victims story here just to put the entire incident in context. It is easy to fall into a sentimentalized oppostion to the death penalty (and I am opposed) if we do not keep front and centre the underlying acts that gave rise to it. However, like the author of the piece I linked to, I am ambivalent in my reaction to this execution given the underlying facts.
At issue is the demands of justice and here there are no easy answers either. The purpose of punishment in Catholic thought is to redrress the disorder caused by the offence. This is difficult and challenging and requires much prayer and discernment. Sometimes legislators guide the process and legislators are elected by the people. Thus, if a state wishes to remove the death penalty, it needs to reflect the consensus of people. And referring to those who support the death penalty as driven by revenge and being fundamentalistic is naive, simplistic, and a charicature.
Jospeh is dead wrong about victim-impact statements. They are information that helps guide the judge in sentencing. They are part of the consideration and an important part. Additionally, there are diversion programs, and alternative justice programs that Crown Attorney's can use to handle people charged of less serious offences. So for example, sometimes simple assault can be diverted away from the criminal justice system but here, the victim, has to be in agreement.
There is the restorative justice movement which, in some models, includes the accused directly meeting with victims so that they can all share how this action affected them and then together the circle comes up with an appropriate resolution
This includes such things as sentencing circles and is often an alternative to incarceration.
ISTM that there is one benefit of life without parole over a 20 year sentence: life without parole would probably serve as a deterrent, at least in some cases, whereas 20 years (or possible rehabilitation) might not. In other words, someone might consider 20 years in jail worth it to be rid of a hated spouse or boss, but that person might not choose do it if the sure effect would be life imprisonment.
I speak as a European, that is, as a member of a society that has abolished capital punishment and never regretted it.
When Europeans hear Americans say things like "Death is the backbone of American justice", they shiver.
US prison chaplains are heard complaining that the entire penal system is awash in vengefulness and in a mythology of "closure." But such voices go unheard.
The very high murder rate in the USA may seem to make capital punishment necessary, but from the European perspective they are two sides of the same coin.
These were exceptionally cruel crimes, there is no question, but imposing an exceptionally cruel death on the perpetrator takes us down the road of being no better than the criminals we seek to punish. What makes these crimes shocking to us is the very fact that most of us could not imagine inflicting this kind of suffering on anyone -- if we justify the circumstances of Lockett's execution as "just" given what he did, we are entering his dark world, not defending the one we wish to live in, where people would never do something so utterly debased.
And that's apart from the fact that the death penalty is applied in an unequal, sometimes arbitrary manner, based on race, class, access to good lawyers, the identity of the victim (black on white crime gets much harsher penalties than any other combination) and according to the whims of political opportunism. The sight of Mary Fallin wearing a cross sent shivers up my spine. Why would I ever go to the same church she does?
A brief response to those of you who are disposed to think either that the death penalty is sometimes appropriate, or that sometimes a sentence of life without parole is fitting.
First, about the deeath penalty. Albet Camus, in "The Rebel" talks vigorously opposes what he calls "rational murder," the killing of a human being that rests upon some theory, e.g., societal benefit, ridding a society of some institutionalized serious injustice, etc. Camus is thinking particularly of Soviet and Nazi crimes perpetrated in the name of some ideology. He is not talking about self-defense, but does say that even in the case of justified self-defense somethingterrible has occurred even if it is not immpra;. By extension, I would grant the right of self-defense but would insist that any "theory," any legal prohibitions of murder, treason, or any other category of capital offenses that would permit the death penalty is tantamount to what Camus alls rational murder. In my view, any killing of a person who poses no proximate threat to the life or basic well-being of another person is not justifiable by any set of purported rational norms.
With regard to sentences of life inprisonment without parole, I would maintain that they are not necessary to insure public safety. Even if they have some deterrent effect, that benefit comes at too high a price. Its price is the denial of the fundamental dignity of the criminal as a child of God and a morally responsible agent who is capable of repentance and reform.
In both of these matters, we would do well to pay close attention to the Kantian conception of the kidn of autonomy that we are obligated to acknowledge that each person is endowed with. It is not for us to decide that a person ever loses his or her right to respect for his or her fundamental humanity. Life in prison without parole is, so far as I can see, wholly incompatibl with recogniziing this dignity..
Good for you, Bernard. But how would you convince someone who does not share your religious convictions?
Just want to comment that I'm appreciating this excellent discussion.
If I may attempt to connect a couple of comments and then branch into a topic that I hope doesn't digress too far from the death penalty: George notes, "if a state wishes to remove the death penalty, it needs to reflect the consensus of people." And Katherine stated, "Then there is the question of what we do to ourselves as a society by by state sponsored premeditated killing, which often seems arbitrary in the way it is applied."
Katherine's phrase "state sponsored premeditated killing" may encompass more than the death penalty, and her comment made me think of the drone strikes that are intended to kill alleged terrorists and sometimes, we are told, also result in "collateral damage", i.e. others are also wounded or killed. I can think of a number of problems with this regime of state-sponsored assassinations, but what I'd like to focus on here is the lack of transparency and accountability. Perhaps I am incorrect about this, but my perception is that an executive-ordered hit on a terrorist lacks the due process protections that are built into state-sponsored executions for criminal offenses. Even with all of the appeals hurdles that must be cleared in order to administer the death penalty in the US, we are left with a distressing lack of certainty that we've got things right, and in fact it's well-known that many convicted denizens of death row have later been freed. (Although perhaps that fact actually is an argument in favor of the appeals process?)
At any rate, I don't think a President needs to clear those hurdles when he contemplates executing an alleged terrorist. Does he even need to go to any court, even a secretly convened court, to obtain permission for a drone strike? What are the evidential standards that must be met before an executive order is issued? I don't think these things are well-understood by the American public - they're certainly not understood by me - and I do see that as a problem. This program is being carried out in our name, and I don't think we're on top of it. It leaves me morally queasy, to say the least.
(I happened to watch parts of "Zero Dark Thirty" yesterday, and so terrorist-hunting is top of mind for me. It's a gripping film that doesn't glamorize the war on terror nor shy away from the moral quandaries.)
In both of these matters, we would do well to pay close attention to the Kantian conception of the kidn of autonomy that we are obligated to acknowledge that each person is endowed with. It is not for us to decide that a person ever loses his or her right to respect for his or her fundamental humanity. Life in prison without parole is, so far as I can see, wholly incompatibl with recogniziing this dignity..
Bernard - I am not sure that I disagree with you, and in fact I've often said that I'd be a terrible judge because I wouldn't have the heart to sentence convicted criminals to long stretches in prison. But, if I may play devil's advocate: you seem to be saying that there is something about the nature of imprisonment that is incompatible with fundamental human dignity. If this is so, then it's difficult to see how any imprisonment for any length of time can be justified.
The US and most/all other societies have 'degrees' of prison: minimum-security, medium-security, maximum-security, et al. If a person sentenced to life without parole were given progressively less severe degrees of imprisonment as he aged, would that ameliorate your concerns?
In death penalty states, as in organized crime families, the willingness to kill is a prerequisite for office. No one can be elected governor here without pretending to look forward eagerly to executing a whole bunch of bad guys. "I am for the electric bleachers!" one otherwise sensibe state senator once proclaimed. On another hand, we have elected governors whose tax returns reflect a near aversion to charitable giving. Charity is optional, killing is not.
Usually (not always) successful candidates for the top offices are beyond being suckered by the cant about deterence and closure. I wonder if the effort to make capital punishment as painless as possible owes more to the qualms of the chief executives -- regardless of how much blood lust they exhibit while running -- than to the Constitution's bar on cruel and unusual punishment. I mean, if you want efficiency and certainty the firing squad and the guillotine will deliver it more surely than drug cocktails.
As Lisa's post makes clear, we don't know what we are doing with our drugs, and I am wondering if we are doing it that way not to spare the person being executed from pain but to spare the responsible officials.
Jim P. let me try to respond to you. As I see it, there are many respectable reasons for punishing criminal conduct. But both the ultimate objective of doing so is the rehabilitation of the criminal and the consequent reincorporation of him or her into society as a full-fledged citizen. In practice, this rehabilitation may not in fact take place and the criminal may still be subject to some sanctions for the duration of his or her life. For example, sexual predators may have to suffer some restrictions because we have no other good way to insure the safety of our young. But the sentence of life in prison without parole is so extreme that it makes a mockery of the notion of rehabilitation. The separation from society that prison effects is so extreme that, unless it has a clearly specified terminal date, it is practically impossible to square with respect for the prisoner's dignity. I know that there are cases where some prisoneers who are neever eligivle for parole have still transformed themselves itnto quite admirable persons, but it would stretch credulity to suggest that the imposition of the sentence of life without parole either was intendede to foster their conversion or was a positive encouragement for them to reform.
Let me add to my earlier remarks, that I cannot see howsupport for sentences of life without parole are consistent witl the persistent Biblical injunction for mercy toward those who offend us, no matter how grievous the offense.
I hope that this is clarifying. I'm convinced of all this, but no one has told me that I am infallible about this or anything else.
George D, do you know how odd the following sounds: "Thus, if a state wishes to remove the death penalty, it needs to reflect the consensus of people."
Not "impose" but "remove." So the "default" position is, the death penalty is normative; the burden lies with those seeking to "remove" it.
I would say this in response: in order for the death penalty to be just it must reflect the consensus of society in such a way that it can be justly applied. I live in a state where the same offense is a lot less like to result in the death penalty in some communities than others. And I mean: almost never, where I live, and quite frequently elsewhere. Thus, even within a single state, the application of the death penalty varies a lot by geography, and that geography reflects the lack of consensus among state citizens about the propriety of the death penalty. This is, itself, a form of signficant inequity, and it is particularly stark in my state that this inequality results in gross racial disparities in the application of the death penalty.
Ann Olivier,
Humans have trouble understanding rare events. The probability of punishment has a much larger effect on than the severity. This is especially true for people with poor impulse control who are most likely to commit crimes. There may be a few cases on the margin where someone might be deterred by the difference between a 20 year sentence and a life sentence, but that marginal benefit isn't worth the cost of imprisoning a large number of relatively harmless seniors.
Jim P. ==
About drone strikes -- ISTM that ultimately they are a question of what I would call vigilante justice, "taking the law into your own hands", protecting yourself when th extant laws do not provide adequtely for self-defense or when there are no extant laws covering the issues.
I'm not sure whether or not use of drones are justified. As I see it there is no hope of protecting ourselves surely from the promised aggression of the islamist terrorists who see the U.S. as "the great Satan". Yes, this assumes that someone (we, in this case) can know what the relevant moral factors are. But ALL morality assumes that the moral agents ar capale of knowing wha the relevant moral factors are.
Here's a thought experiment to examplify the kind of dilemma I'm thinking of. It's a Western movie plot in which a town is terrorized by a gang of outlaws who live just over he hill. Let's say the sheriff has been killed by the gang, and a new one has yet to be elected. None of the local men have enough courage to act against the gang members. A stranger comes to town who has enough courage to engage the gang. He takes the law into his own hands, inspiring some locals tto join him, and in a shoot out they rid the town of the gang by shooting them all. Was that organized murder? I say no, that there are times whe, if th extant law does no protect you, you may take the law in your own hands. The, as I see it, is the basis of th right to self defense, which is, of course, the basis of all laws which defend one person from another.
This is problably an example for another thread -- but the *principless/question at issue* are all the same: 1) what is the *moral basis* for self-defense? and 2) *when* may one act to defend onself if there is no adequate legal protection?
"The probability of punishment has a much larger effect on than the severity"
Ryan --
How do you know this? How was this proven? I'd be glad to think it's true, but I'd need some conclusive evidence.
I think the majority will sooner accept elimination of the death penalty if there is still life without parole, at least in the case of sociopathic cold blooded murder.
I wonder why people commit some crimes. It's said that we are all capable of doing bad things, but from a psychological point of view, I don't think all people do have the same capacity for crime. I mean, there are people who are sociopaths, psychopaths, without empathy, and I'm not sure how or if empathy can be effectively taught to an adult ... could a person who can bury someone alive for no better reason than they were in his way ever be a safe person to be around?
Not arguing for the death penalty, but jail time.
To Crystal: perhaps they can be retrained as CEOs and released into Wall Street.
So the "default" position is, the death penalty is normative; the burden lies with those seeking to "remove" it.
Yes, that is true but it reflects history and modern societies, including the Catholic church's approach to the question. Historically the death penalty has been normative. Capital punishment was even legal in Vatican City between 1929 and 1969 and people were executed in the papal states!
Removing the death penalty as a form of punishment for crimes is a new phenomenon. It is one that I support, but the tide of history for millenia, has been in its application. Canada did not abolish capital punishment until 1976.
George D.,
Any penalty must be capable of fair application for it to be normative, even the death penalty. That has been the rule of law in the U.S. since the beginning, for any penalty. (Of course, our entire history is "relatively recent" so maybe you find that unpersuasive).
Flogging was normative "until recently," (and is still practiced in some countries, like Singapore), and the the death penalty was "normative" relatively recently even for relatively minor (property) infractions (in Great Britain).
"Relatively recently" is the same as saying nothing. It won't be "relatively" recent, presumably, until another 1000 years passes, and then we can say that there is some material part of recorded history in which a lot of countries don't impose the death penalty.
In countries we consider to be our peers, the death penalty has been abolished for decades.
Flogging was normative "until recently," (and is still practiced in some countries, like Singapore), and the the death penalty was "normative" relatively recently even for relatively minor (property) infractions (in Great Britain).
I don't know how I'd find this out, but I have a supposition that, whereas the death penalty still enjoys broad support in the US, flogging does not. And yet many Americans support waterboarding terrorism suspects. To me this all seems pretty incoherent. But then, I find the need to administer the death penalty humanely to be pretty incoherent, too.
Ann Olivier,
Here is a short summary.
There is also an intrinsic trade-off between severity and certainty in any system that aspires to be just. The more severe the punishment, the more procedural protections we want to make sure we get things right, which adds uncertainty and delay to the punishment. The death penalty is a good example of this.
That is why I reject the popular conception of Hell. Creating such a Hell is worse than any crime a human can commit.
Yes, the whole idea of hell is problematic, at least for me.
I am absolutely against the death penalty. I am unequivocally against torture. I find it baffling when I encounter others who share my beliefs on these issues but will support the right to an abortion. I've heard the arguments, but I fail to follow the logic.
Ryan --
Thanks. Very interesting. It brings up the point not mentioned here yet that longer sentences sometimes servve only to school the inmates in criminality. But if punishment doesn't work outside of prison, as one study concludes, that would seem to make it imperative to get the bad guys into prison.
I'd still like a lot more studies of what has what consequences. And it seems to me that not enough attention has been paid to the effects of murder on the family of the victims.
Yes, I think I'm somewhat more conservative about prison than most here (though I'm definitely against capital punishment and for rehabilitation for the lesser crimes). But maybe that's because, against the odds and unlike other liberals I know, I have known 5people who have been murdered and another who was probably murdered. They were all middle class to rich folks. Two were murdered by strangers off the street, and in the other cases the murderers haven't been caught. I inevitably keep thinking that *something* must be done, at least for the sake of the families that survive.
I think perhaps for many people the torture and execution of a person is very different than the abortion of an embryo or early fetus (88+% of abortions occur before the end of the 12th week).
Whether you are for or against the death penalty in principle, you have to be aghast at the way in which it is applied in the US: a significant percentage of the condemned are innocent; race is a major factor to the conviction; very large amounts of money are spent in the legal process; and the executions themselves are done in a way that defies sense.
It is not a functional society that first floods the place with guns and then deals with high crime by executing a few people who look like they might be hardened criminals. Talk about respect for life!
I cannot say that I am viscerally against the death penalty. When Saddam Hussein was executed, at the same time as I was disgusted by the sight of celebrations, there was still a feeling of grim justice. I have a special place in my ranking of crimes for political leaders who use their official position to abuse and kill large numbers of people subjected to their authority. Those are criminals for which I find it hard to feel sympathy, and their continued existence would keep alive worries that some conspiracy at some point might bring them back to power.Those, not the sick serial-killers, are the extreme cases that put in question my commitment against the death penalty.
Otherwise I am against the death penalty, but the opposition is not emotional but rational. I am convinced that the life of every single person is a gift from God even if in some individual cases it can be hard to see that emotionally.
I agree on the issue of inconsistent and spotty application of the death penalty in many jurisdictions. The OJ trial, for example, should have been a death penalty case given the criteria in the state of Californa (pre-meditated and more than one victim) but it wasn't; not do to his race but celebrity and defence. Possibly because of an evaluation of the evidence too but had it not been celebrity, it would have been tried differently.
But inconsistent applicaton of justice is a problem throughout the continuum of the entire criminal justice system. In Canada, for example there is concern from some that the jails are becoming the latest transitional housing facilities for people with mental illness and addictions. Instead of funding community mental health interventions and harm reduction interventions, as well as enhancing restorative justice as a means to rehabilitate and address offences, we are starting to see the emergence of "super-jails". That is troubling to me.
I just think energies are better spent on judicial reform in these areas as they impact more people. Capital punishment is dramatic and emotional and the cases harrowing. And, as I said, while I am opposed, in many of these cases, I am ambivalent when I read the underlying facts.
But on the broader point of reform of practices and alternative paths to justice, I am a supporter.
In my heart i can't help but feel some people deserve the death penalty.I know i don't believe in the lethal injection medicalization of killing someone. A firing squad where the person is not treated like a sick animal, but like an upright person responsible for his/her actions seems justified .Punishment, vengence ,retaliation has its place in the human heart ,and therefore has to be chanelled appropriately.The death penalty for certain pre-meditated horrific murders satisfies this cry for justice,i think. However i know that this goes aginst my christian faith. So i am happy to defer to the teachings of the church on this matter and remain silent rather then defend execuctions [except for here, now].One thing i do follow my conscience about is life in prison without parole; that I believe is inhuman and should be abolished.No one should have to live out their lives as unfree subjects.Could you hold the key to someone's freedom and face them day in and day out,year in,year out and deny them freedom,i ask? I could not. Could you shoot someone as revenge for having brutalily murdered[a child ,say?] ,i ask? i think ,i could,though i don't really know if i could.The idea that a person could torture and murder a person then one day walk free is apalling and so is the idea of locking someone up forever in prison.Forfeiting your life as punishment for a cold blooded taking of a life is justice, i think.Life in prison without parole dehumanizes the prisoner and the guard.Humans are not meant to live chained.That's inhuman.Righteous anger,revenge ,puncishment has its place, i believe. But if the church teaching is NO- then i'll remain silent on the matter.I'll get what's coming to me,if Jesus judges me harshly for feeling this way ,I guess.
This AP story that appeared in my local newspaper yesterday reports that defendants of death row convicts are using this Oklahoma incident in their appeals. Headline: "Botched execution could slam brakes on death penalty"
If punishment ,retaliation, vengeance is wrong then with todays technology,there is no reason to have prisons at all. Today people can be monitored electronically and being a prison guard could entail simply monitoring people via cameras as they go about freely in their homes, and on the streets. No matter the crime; a murderer, rapist, mass murderer, etc. could theoretically commit the most horrific crime and then go about their lives freely as society's safety is assured by monitoring.So-is punishment justified,ever, or not?Let's get real here.
On the topic of drone assassinations, this Steven Chapman column from yesterday criticizes the federal government's lack of transparency in the program. Headline: "Secrets and lies of Obama's drone war"
I just wonder if "transparency" could ever excuse executions on the basis that one person, the president, is judge, jury (with his advisors), court of appeals and executioner. We wisely separate those functions in our criminal justice system and similarly separate the various functions of our war-making apparatus. So what is there about the technology of drones which makes it prudent to give all power and authority to a single individual, provided only that the one individual, wearing a PR hat, tell us what he has been doing whenever he sees fit to tell us?
Consider a hard-working couple with two kids. The father is shot dead in front of his house, and the mother, who is not terribly bright, has to raise the kids alone on a meagre salary. It seems to me that if a community is rich enough to afford rehabilitation for the murderer that it is also has obligations to those individuals whose lives have been shattered by the failure to police the streets.
Now let's move forward 10 years. Those two children are now on drugs. The older one kills someone in a robbery for dope. Does the community owe him rehabilitation? There's a terrible irony in such cases -- the reason the kid needs rehab is because his dad was murdered.
ISTM that the community has the obligation to get to the *root causes* of kids on dope who murder, and that is 1) lack of education and 2) lack of opportunity. And we're the ones responsible that that. So ultimately, who is responsible for all the killing and all the need for rehabilitation? Sure, the killers. But they aren't the only ones who have failed.
The difficulty with drones is the way we blur the line between war and our criminal justice system. Against a uniformed army whom we're at war with, there wouldn't be any problem. The drone wouldn't be any different than a bomber. Instead of this clear threat, we are opposing a loose grouping of organizations without clear memberships who are unable to surrender. This makes civilian casualties very likely, creates problems with the sovreignty of other nations, and normalizes a set of rules (the laws of war) that were intended to be used on in extraordinary circumstances. I would move the drones into the Air Force and focus our counterterrorism efforts in conventional law enforcement.
Consider a hard-working couple with two kids. The father is shot dead in front of his house, and the mother, who is not terribly bright, has to raise the kids alone on a meagre salary. It seems to me that if a community is rich enough to afford rehabilitation for the murderer that it is also has obligations to those individuals whose lives have been shattered by the failure to police the streets.
Rose-Ellen Caminer,
Our new technologies only monitor. They can aid verification that someone is complying with certain terms, but if someone strongly wants to commit a crime, the best it can do is tell us that they are not complying.
There also is an issue of deterance. While I don't believe life without parole or the death penalty have that much greater deterant effect than a twenty year sentence, going to prison is a big difference from house arrest.
One thing that seems to be missed by many commentors, or maybe its just assumed, is that wherever one stands on capital punishment, there is no question at all that in the United States one cannot torture someone to death. That is what happened in this case. No matter what the crime, our Constitution outlaws torture as a form of punishment. And the Governor acted disgracefully over-ruling the State Supreme Court. this effort was esensially a "science experiement" where the state of Oklahoma had no idea whether its drug mixture would work or not. A similar mixture had been used only 1 time before, but with a signifcantly higher dosage of the intial drug. And the attempt to revive the prisoner, talk about barbaric.
One final note on the life without parole argument. At some point this can be a punishment without any effect. In a community near me there is currently a large fight going on against a proposal by the state to open a facility for prisoners who are too elderly or too infirmed to remain in a regular prison. A significant propotion of these cases involve people with dementia. What, pray tell, is the value of keeping a sickly, demented elderly individual in prison other than to say we did it? At some point it no longer serves any purpose, other than perhaps vengence.
Another problem with drones, istm, is the impossibility of surrender. Some guy condemns you without judge, jury, separation of these roles, or any transparent legal process, and then one day you're walking down the street and are hit by a missile. In addition to the substantial "collateral damage," (dead innocents,) there's no way you can put your hands up and be taken prisoner. Sometimes this is true in war, (bombing raids, e.g.,) but generally if a person surrenders they must be taken prisoner, not killed.
So if the Taliban gets hold of a drone, and sends it to destroy a drone operator's shack in Arizona or wherever, taking out a few civilians on the side, will we consider that just and legal?
In case anyone might be interested in what the codemned man did, see
But be warned: It is grusome in the extreme.
are you suggesting that horror at the man's crimes may have caused the executioners to torture him on purpose?
Then they should be sued.
Bob Schwatz,
It is well established that Lockett was a bad guy and deserving of punishment. But torture has never been part of our tradition no matter what the person had done. Over our history a number of very bad people have been sentenced to death and never, ever has torture been acceptable. One can dispute whether capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, but not whether the state is permitted to torture a criminal before or during the carrying out of the sentence. It is simply not allowed.
Bob, like I said, the crimes were exceptionally cruel. It's hard even to read about them let alone look at graphic evidence. But endorsing or even requiring the same level of cruelty in return just lowers our moral authority to impose punishment of any kind. It's also extremely bad for the people imposing the penalty, because while it might be emotionally satisfying to sit here typing about how this guy deserved what he got, normal people, good people, would be traumatized at the thought that they had actually inflicted this kind of torment. That's what makes them good and normal, and not cruel or unusual. Even executioners in the middle ages used to ask their victims for forgiveness.
Torture is wrong not only because of what it does to the victim but because of what it does to the torturer. Animals kill quickly, while a torturer, drawing agony out, reduces himself to something even less than a beastl.
Hi - I know this thread has been dormant for a while, and the topic has fallen off the first page of dotCom, but I saw this article and want to refer it to anyone who may still be checking. It appeared at Slate.com. Headline: "Death penalty in America: How the push to abolish capital punishment has made lethal injection less safe."


text:
Recipes to Trim Your Waistline (Slide 1)
(Slide 1 of 15) Start at the beginning | View recipes as list
Recipe: Pecan & Mushroom Burgers
View as: Thumbnails List
Pecan & Mushroom Burgers
Filled with toasted pecans, vinegar-splashed mushrooms and bulgur, these burgers have an earthy, nut…View slide
Mustard Greens & Bulgur
Pungent mustard greens beg for other strong flavors for balance. Here walnut oil, walnuts, dates, bu…View slide
Brown Rice & Tofu Maki
Maki is the Japanese name for the "sushi rolls" favored by many. Short-grain rice is full of amy…View slide
Couscous & Fruit Salad
Try this fruit-and-nut-studded couscous salad alongside grilled salmon or chicken for supper or on i…View slide
Nectarine & Prosciutto Pizza
Here sweet ripe nectarines and salty prosciutto ham are arranged on a crust slathered with basil pes…View slide
Catalan Sauteed Polenta & B…
This dish is a satisfying vegetarian meal complete with spinach, beans and polenta, inspired by clas…View slide
Wild Mushroom & Barley Risotto
In this pungent mushroom risotto, we substitute fiber-rich barley for the more traditional arborio r…View slide
Toasted Quinoa Salad with S…
This scallop-studded quinoa salad gets an exciting texture from crunchy snow peas, red bell pepper a…View slide
Eggs Italiano
This sophisticated take on Eggs Benedict swaps a full-flavored, chunky vegetable medley for Canadian…View slide
Barbecued Raspberry-Hoisin …
Hoisin sauce along with pureed tart raspberries makes a wonderful Chinese-inspired marinade and dipp…View slide
Italian Vegetable Hoagies
This delightfully easy, and somewhat messy, sandwich packs a punch with sweet balsamic vinegar, arti…View slide
Rice & Lentil Salad
A simple dressing of sherry vinegar, Dijon mustard and paprika flavors this rice and lentil salad. I…View slide
Creamy Fettuccine with Brus…
Sliced Brussels sprouts and mushrooms cook quickly and cling to the pasta in our fall version of pas…View slide
Shrimp Panzanella
This fresh-tasting panzanella (Italian bread-and-tomato salad) is made with shrimp, olives and plent…View slide


text:
May one use mezuzot with different scripts in the same house? For example can the muzuzah in one room be ashkenaz (beit yosef) and in another be sefardi (vellish)?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
As noted in another answer of mine:
Halakhicly speaking it is fine. Since in the time of Hhazal there were no such cultural/ethnic divisions, no ruling (that I know of) was made on this matter.
Nor is this to be found in the earliest halakhic codifications (ie. Sepher Ha-Halakhoth of the RIF and Mishneh Torah of the RaMBaM)
It is also interesting as a side question as to what other ethnic groups like Mizrahim and Chabashim would do if they could not get mezuzoth according to their mesora and were faced with a "Ashkenazi or Sephardi" situation I assume they would take the irritating Israeli approach of "if their not from Ashkenaz their Sephardi" OR should they mix?


text:
Our Publications
- Aspen
- Atlanta
- Chicago
- Dallas
- The Hamptons
- Hawai'i
- Houston
- Los Angeles
- Miami
- New York
- Orange County
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- Scottsdale
- Washington, D.C.
Home › Scene › Foodie Fetes ›
Foodie Fetes
Some 450 guests got a sneak peek of Coppa Osteria in Rice Village, the latest from Clark Cooper Concepts, at a fun preview party. Guests admired the new space, which includes a walk-up pizza window where passers-by can grab a quick slice, and a view of the room where dough is made. Visitors noshed on Italian eats, like mini meatballs and truffle breadsticks. … Up Restaurant introduced its new Gastro Bar Menu at a mixer for members of HYPE and Greater Houston Partnership. Bites included sesame-crusted prawns and short-rib tacos. Photography by Daniel Ortiz, Monica Kressman and Kim Coffman


text:
Like for example, it's common to use the Greek letter $\theta$ to represent an angle right? So what would a Greek person doing math use to represent an angle? Would they also use $\theta$? Or is there another notation that they would use in order for them to use their letters like we do? Such as if we say $A\geq B$, would a Greek student, mathematician, or whoever say: $\alpha \geq \beta$ or is there something else they say? It just seems like the Greek letters from a non-Greek point of view have so much meaning to us, but then how do they percieve their letters used in mathematics?
What do Greek Mathematicians use when they use our equivalent Greek letters in formulas and equations?
The Greeks seems to use the Latin letters together with Greek letters as the rest of us. Here is a screen dump from some notes on Functional analysis. Of course this is just an example.
In my experience with Greeks, they set $a = \alpha$ and $b=\beta$ etc... however, the Greeks I knew were beyond associating a concept with a letter, so perhaps these are not the Greeks which you seek.
I do recall many conversations of the form: "is it "a" or is it "$\alpha$"" to which I would inevitably get the annoyed retort: "yes".