GR: Friday, June 4, 2021

Roe on the ropes? The biggest problem with CRT. "Read" something else. Why he didn't just bake the cake. D-Day remembered.

Roe on the Ropes?
That the full-throated argument in “Abortion as an Instrument of Eugenics” has appeared in the Harvard Law Review suggests that Roe v. Wade might be in serious legal trouble. Let’s hope so. But I’m no constitutional scholar, nor am I familiar with what the HLR has published about abortion in the past—perhaps significant attacks on Roe v. Wade are not unusual in its pages. As a friend reminds me, this is a rebuttal to a previous piece, essentially an op-ed—so it may portend nothing. Still, given the current make-up of the court and the abortion cases that will be coming before it, the timing seems propitious.  The thesis of the piece:

Abortion is often employed for eugenics purposes — especially for sex selection and disability elimination. Abortion is used by women and men to kill girls because they are girls. Abortions are obtained in substantial numbers in order to cull the disabled, before birth, because they are disabled. And, while it seems unlikely that an abortion would be obtained specifically because the child is Black, the exercise of the right to legal abortion definitely has a racially disparate eugenic impact.

Is that not disturbing?

Let the reader beware that the essay runs over 6,000 words, and uses case references and legal terms that are undefined in the piece (e.g. “Stare Decisis”—the doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decisions in a case involving similar facts). 

What Can We Know?
I know I’ve published a lot on Critical Race Theory, but in my view, it’s one of the more troublesome intellectual movements today, not merely for Christians but for classic liberals—meaning those who believe that the democratic process and rational discourse are the best ways to pursue justice and truth in pluralistic societies.  If CRT were merely an intellectual argument pointing out how deeply racism is rooted in our society, I would say let’s have more of it.  But it’s much more than that, as Andrew Sullivan points out in this essay.

I have spent many years studying political theory, which is why, perhaps, I am so concerned. And, for me, the argument [of CRT] is not really about race, or gender, or history, or identity as such.

It’s about epistemology at its most basic. Which, of course, is just a fancy word for the question of what we can know and how we can know it. It’s the beginning of everything in any political system. Get it right, and much good follows. Get it wrong, and we’re in deep trouble.

Enough Words!
Even the insatiably curious readers (and editor) of GR can get bogged down with the reading of words. But we don’t want to stop reading altogether—as if we could, given our passions. Still, there are times we may want to “read” something else:

When we read the book of nature, what is it that we read? Nothing less than a description of who God is, insisted this tradition. In the words of Basil of Caesarea: “We were made in the image and likeness of our Creator, endowed with intellect and reason, so that our nature was complete and we could know God. In this way, continuously contemplating the beauty of creatures, through them as if they were letters and words, we could read God’s wisdom and providence over all things.”

One reason I’ve taken up drawing in my retirement is that it forces me to look closely at the world I’m trying to depict.  It forces me to slow down and, well, read nature.  Peter Mommsen’s “The Book of the Creatures: When we forget how to read nature, we forget how to read ourselves” encourages me to get away from words for a while!

By the way, Plough Quarterly magazine, from which this article comes, is beautifully written and designed, and imbued with wise, Christian sensibilities.  Read some of their other articles and see if you don’t agree. And then subscribe to support great magazine journalism.

Why He Didn’t Just Bake the Cake
I’ve read many a legal argument over why a baker might legally be entitled to refuse to create a baked good that displays a message that violates his core convictions. Still, it’s refreshing to hear Jack Phillips (the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, who was sued for not baking a cake for a same-sex couple) explain simply and clearly in his own words which customers he will serve (everyone), and where and why he draws the line sometimes.

D-Day
June 6 is the 77th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought a history video might be in order. Here is one in which one soldier remembers that day while footage of the event plays. A good reminder of the courage and sacrifice it took to defeat murderous fascism.

Grace and peace,

Mark Galli
markgalli.com