Well, well, there’s tolerance, and then there’s tolerance. A recent interview of Martha Nussbaum in the Boston Review shows what at least one pillar of our liberal establishment has in mind when it comes to Catholicism.
The interview by Boston Review Web Editor David V. Johnson was prompted by Nussbaum’s new book, The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age. I skimmed the book when it came out. It’s Martha Nussbaum at her self-confident, insular, verbose worst, useful only as an efficient way to get up to date on the latest liberal pieties. (Nussbaum can be very sanctimonious.) And the same holds for the interview, which is shorter and thus to be preferred to the book.
Here is a telling exchange:
DJ: You argue that Catholic universities that restrict their presidencies to priests (i.e., males) should lose their tax-exempt status, because there is a compelling state interest to open such positions to both sexes. But isn’t that a slippery slope? Don’t most religions have objectionable views about sexual equality?
MN: I was making a specific point about the logic of the Bob Jones v. U.S. case, which dealt with that university’s policy banning interracial dating. The Supreme Court held that to withdraw the university’s tax exemption did indeed impose a “substantial burden” on the group’s free exercise of religion, but was justified by a “compelling state interest” in not cooperating with and strengthening racism. The government was in effect giving Bob Jones a massive gift of money. The same is true today of Catholic universities, all of which (excepting Georgetown, which now has a lay president) have statutory prohibitions against a female candidate for president. By giving them a large gift, the government is cooperating with sexism. I think that refusing to give someone a gift is quite different from making their activities illegal, and nobody was proposing to do that in either case. Moreover, these were not just tendencies or social facts—after all, lots people of all religions prefer to date only people of the same race, as many studies show—we are talking in both cases about mandatory rules, official university policies. I think it’s fine to refuse to give someone a huge gift when they have such mandatory policies, so what I was saying was that if a case parallel to Bob Jones were brought concerning the Catholic universities and their presidencies, it ought to come out the same way. Or rather, it ought to have come out the same say—since of course the legal standard under which we currently operate is a slightly different and weaker one than the one that prevailed when Bob Jones was decided, so we don’t know how either case would come out today.
As I wrote on the pages of First Things, contemporary American liberalism is tempted to use the Selma Analogy to effect a Gleichschaltung (that’s the German word the Nazis used to describe their goal of bringing all of society into line with their program) in twenty-first century America. Very tempted.
August 17th, 2012 | 5:27 pm
Martha Nussbaum is apparently willing to shade the truth when it suits her purposes, as in her testimony in the Romer case in Colorado. In her exchange with John Finnis during that case and afterwards, she wonderfully brought to mind Lillian Hellman as famously described by Mary McCarthy.
August 17th, 2012 | 5:42 pm
R.R., I think there is something else happening here too. According to some statistics I came across 35% of baby boomers, 11% of Gen X and 5% of Millennials consider themselves “active members of a Christian church or community” What this means is that the social services the church and the para-church offers, through diaconate work, hospitals, universities, other schools, etc… is not really understood anymore. At a time when many people had a general understanding of the church and it’s role in society, many people were okay with the charitable status. After all, they felt the benefits of the public service being offered, by Christian charitable organizations. But now, less and less people feel the benefits or are even aware of the benefits to society brought about by the church. This naturally leads to the question in the minds of those people, “why should the church continue to enjoy these ‘gifts’?” In Nussbaum’s case, liberalism drives her views… but it is growing secularism that makes her views sound compelling.
August 18th, 2012 | 9:07 am
It is remarkable how, in this view, allowing a religious institution to keep more of its own money is a “gift.”
August 18th, 2012 | 10:42 am
How telling that the centrality of the state is so overwhelming that failing to take money from a non-profit organization is seen as a huge and unmerited gift. One might also say grace.
Such largesse by the all-encompassing state, and all must bow and scrape before its “compelling interests.” Thank you state, for permitting us to exist, for we are not worthy.
August 18th, 2012 | 11:38 am
The smug complacency and self-satisfaction of the secular liberal elite is most evident in Nussbaum’s recent book, “Not for Profit.” Although a purported defense of the humanities from those who would reduce higher education to business education, the book ironically argues for a full politiciation of the humanities, reducing them to mere tools of political propoganda. Particularly striking to me from reading the book was the “bubble” which Nussbaum and her ilk seem to inhabit: for all her bromides about “challenging authority” and “conventional wisdom,” she is unquestioning in her assumption that secular humanism is the only position worthy of good, rational people and that only liberal secular humanists are the proper authorities to follow. It was a nauseating read.
August 18th, 2012 | 5:55 pm
It would be nice to see someone who objects to what Nussbaum is saying actually engage the argument she offers. Accusing her of trying “to effect a Gleichschaltung” for supposing the state shouldn’t cooperate in sexism is vile, an example of the vacuous but unfortunately rather typical by rhetoric that is making serious discussion of these kinds of issues increasingly rare. That and the lazy recitation of phrases like “secular humanism” makes me wonder how many here know that Nussbaum in fact is a practicing Jew who takes her religion quite seriously.
August 18th, 2012 | 9:17 pm
Of course, Georgetown University requires the hiring of a Catholic president. Unless sex discrimination is worse than religious discrimination, I don’t know how this gets Nussbaum out of the logical consequence of her position: all religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status, if the institutions act as if their religious beliefs are true.
Talk about the “new intolerance.” So, as long as all religious institutions behave exactly like secular institutions in their hiring practices, then they get tax exemptions. But in that case, they cease to be religious institutions and lose tax exempt status anyways.
August 18th, 2012 | 10:54 pm
“The same is true today of Catholic universities, all of which (excepting Georgetown, which now has a lay president) have statutory prohibitions against a female candidate for president. ”
What does this mean exactly, and is it true? Is it that other than Georgetown, Catholic universities must have priests as president? Or do these institutions allow men who are not priests to be presidents, but not women?
August 18th, 2012 | 11:50 pm
Thomas Aquinas, your scenario would follow only if you suppose that only a pernicious form of religious discrimination could be thought to account for a Catholic school wanting to hire Catholic presidents. This is not the case obviously, and no one supposes it to be the case. Hence no one could argue that the state is cooperating with an evil in allowing the exemption to institutions who favor co-religionists. The question being asked by Nussbaum is essentially whether we can say the same thing about the insistence on having priests alone serve as university presidents. Nussbaum may be wrong in supposing that this practice works against the surely valid social goal of eliminating unjust discrimination against women. But it is hardly obvious that this is so. In this case is it really so outrageous to ask why the logic of Bob Jones v US wouldn’t apply?
August 19th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
There are still Catholic colleges and universities that are all female in both their leadership in admissions, and plenty more that while now officially co-ed are overwhelmingly populated by the fairer sex. I haven’t checked, but I’d be very surprised if any of those connected to and run by religious sisters are run by men. I’d think they have at least a de facto feminine leadership, if not de jure.
How marginalizing of Martha to neglect to mention them.
August 19th, 2012 | 12:49 pm
Tristian,
It seems to me that if the government were to deny tax-exempt status to Catholic organizations that limit their presidency to priests, it would be going farther than punishing (or withholding a benefit from) organizations that do not give women equal opportunity. It would in essence be declaring that Catholics are engaging in unjust discrimination against women by not allowing them to be ordained as priests. It would be one thing if limiting the presidency of an organization to priests were done as a ruse to deny opportunity to women. Nussbaum might personally believe (and with some good reason) that the Catholic Church discriminates against women by not ordaining them, but certainly government must operate on the assumption that the Catholic Church is within its rights to limit ordination to men and limit certain roles to priests. Otherwise I suppose a justification could be made for declaring that a Catholic parish should not be tax exempt because it only male priests and a diocese should not be tax exempt because there are only male bishops.
In this case is it really so outrageous to ask why the logic of Bob Jones v US wouldn’t apply?
I am beginning to see why some people—including people who abhor racism—found the Bob Jones decision troubling as a legal precedent, because it does seem to open the way to dictating to religions that they must follow standards set by secular society rather than their own religious beliefs.
August 19th, 2012 | 1:34 pm
Nussbaum is mistaken to suggests, as she does in the interview, that Catholic colleges and universities across the board refuse to hire women presidents, but that doesn’t really affect her point. It might help to put this back into the context in which it was raised in the book, where the topic is only briefly touched on and in fact appears as something of an aside. Bob Jones v US comes up in a lengthy argument against banning burqas, and the point Nussbaum is making is that though it has a better record of respecting religious freedom than places like France, the US has not always been consistent in deciding legal cases regarding religious freedom. The point she is trying to make is that the logic of Bob Jones should be applied equally to other religious institutions, and Catholic universities that refuse to hire women president is offered as an example. I think in the end it’s not a convincing example, but as I said neither is it obviously wrong, and she’s surely right in her bigger point.
August 19th, 2012 | 4:05 pm
Here’s a relevant passage from Nussbaum’s _The New Religious Intolerance_, p.120:
“The US government has itself been guilty of inconsistency in its use of the compelling interest standard. Never has our government taken similar steps against the many Roman Catholic universities that restrict their presidencies to priests, hence males; but in my view they should all lose their tax exemptions for this reason. If there is a relevant difference between the two cases, it needs to be articulated.” (my emphasis)
Nussbaum then proceeds by failing to articulate the “relevant differences” which might constitute a “reason.” As is her wont. However, Reno does not satisfactorily address Nussbaum’s challenge by engaging in calumny (“Martha the Commissar”; the insinuation that American liberals such as her are engaging in a Nazi programme) and by patronizing her (referring to her as “Martha”). Surely, the traditional policies of the Catholic Church deserve a better defense than this.
August 19th, 2012 | 11:10 pm
David, I agree up to a point. Nussbuam can’t get away with equating a requirement that a president be a priest with a refusal to allow women to be president, and I would expect that were this to be litigated the difference between a de jure refusal to hire women and a de facto refusal would be crucial. That said, things remain a bit complex. As has been pointed out, Catholic colleges and universities certainly can have women presidents, and so it’s not plausible to argue that it’s a matter of doctrine that only a priest can serve as president. This makes the question of why particularly visible and prestigious universities (like Notre Dame), have this restriction a fair one. As a legal matter whatever the answer is, were this to be litigated it would have to be weighed against the state’s claim to a compelling interest to combat sexism. Having said all that, I would again point out that this is not a matter that particularly animates Nussbaum.
Regarding the precedent of Bob Jones, I think it’s important to forefront the fact that what is at stake is not the right of a Catholic university to hire only priests as presidents. Nussbaum is very clear about that.
The sad thing about all of this is that Reno is spitting in the face of a potential ally in dismissing Nussbaum on the basis of so very little. What are the “liberal pieties” she endorses? Here are the central positions she defends in her two books on religious freedom: a) a more expansive accommodationist position is superior to the weaker Lockean position evinced in, for example, the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Employment Division v Smith; b) religious freedom must include more than freedom to believe so that it includes a robust freedom to practice; c) the American understanding of church/state relations is strongly to be preferred over any thing like French laicite; d) this last fact not withstanding, our history is checkered by significant failures to protect religious freedom (including a lamentable history of anti-Catholicism), the causes of which still bedevil us.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:53 am
Most countries encourage voluntary associations that are seen to be of public utility [association reconnue d’utilité publique] by granting them privileges and immunities not available to other associations, notably the right to receive legacies, tax-exempt status and so on.
Usually, the concept of public utility is pretty generously construed, but, inevitably, cases will arise where the objects of some association are seen as positively mischievous. In France, not long ago, we had the case of a group that forbids its members to defend the nation, to take part in public life, to give blood transfusions to their minor children and that the parliamentary commission on cults has listed them as a cult which can disturb public order. Not surprisingly, the revenue sought to deny tax exemption to their publishing house. Their places of worship were exempt, for these do not have to show “public utility.”
As usual, most people would accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere. It is like the difference between red and orange: some cases are clearly on one side of the line or the other, whilst others are not.
August 20th, 2012 | 10:46 am
Given the new entries, we seem to have a not atypical inversion in interpreting purpose. I think this is most often seen in SSM arguments, where pro-SSM advocates argue that, for example, the state constitutional amendments are not about defining marriage legally but about “banning SSM”. This particular inversion has been swallowed whole by the media. Here the inversion is from the requirement that a priest be at the head of a particular Catholic University to that women are banned, violating Equal Opportunity statues. This runs directly into the First Amendment, as noted above, unless the objector starts writing the rules for the “Catholic” university. I can see where the Bob Jones decision makes this problematic. Then again, any single sex institution is open to the same charge, maybe even Title IX itself as it is applied to single-sex sports teams.
August 20th, 2012 | 12:14 pm
Allowing a private institution to determine the conditions for it’s own leadership is hardly “cooperating in sexism”. It is simply accepting Freedom of Assembly.
And the anathema against making distinctions between sexes is as obscure and esoteric a taboo as any thought up by a religion. It is not a matter of rights. No one has a “right” to be a priest.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:14 pm
Nice discussion.
Minor point touched upon, but could use a little expansion: by this logic, the 65% or so of my earnings I’m allowed to keep is a ‘gift’ from the government. Gee, thanks!
Other than that zinger, the rest of the quote didn’t seem to support the idea that Nussbaum (with whose work I am completely unfamiliar) was all that crazy a liberal. Weighing religious freedom against the interests of the state is serious business, and she seems to be speaking seriously. What’s missing is distinctions, which it would be our job to supply – and several comments have tried to supply them.
Other than the tax/gift issue, my hackles remained flat.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
by this logic, the 65% or so of my earnings I’m allowed to keep is a ‘gift’ from the government.
Joseph,
No, not at all. What is a “gift” (I don’t really agree with the word, actually) is any tax you would owe but are exempted from because you do something the government wants to promote. So if you give money to charity, and you take a tax deduction for it, that deduction is a “gift”—a tax break the government gives you to encourage you to do something for charity. Nobody is saying that everything you keep once you have paid taxes is a gift from the government.
August 20th, 2012 | 6:25 pm
I once assigned a book on Libertarianism to a class. The book’s forward was written by Nussbaum. The book was in a neutral “for and against” format, the tone of which was “here are the arguments for and against, you weigh them, discuss and decide.” Nussbaum’s forward said, in so many words, “well, we’ll give those @#$% libertarians their time on the soapbox, but make sure you, the student, come to the ‘appropriate’ conclusion.”
Sanctimonious indeed. Only time I’ve ever told my students to read a book introduction last.
August 20th, 2012 | 8:59 pm
Who in the world gets to determine what are the compelling interests of the state? This is hokum pure and simple.
If I have the power, then I get to determine what is compelling, and if someone else is in power, presto-chango, the state suddenly has a different compelling interest. But these interests are not not some pure and simple form existing out there in the ether.
Really, who in the hell cares if only a priest can head a religious order’s schools or a nun can only head her order’s schools? Is this the kind of “injustice” we need to spend a lot of time worrying about? Are there really hundreds of men and women in our entire population out there gnashing their teeth that they can’t be president of these institutions? I don’t think so.
These places were built up usually with the hard earned contributions of working class Catholics who wanted to support specifically religious institutions headed by their favored orders. There is nothing invidious or harmful about the selection process used by those religious orders. The state’s interests in butting in are virtually nil.
August 21st, 2012 | 1:27 am
Dear David,
I believe you’re missing the point – I have a duty to pay taxes, a duty I’m more or less happy to fulfill. When we had a bunch of children, my taxes effectively went down – is that a ‘gift’ from the government? Rather, it is a recognition of the obvious fact that by raising children, my wife and I are making a contribution in kind, so to speak, to the nation’s future, in lieu of taxes.
My situation as a father is not fundamentally different than a church’s traditional role in providing services in lieu of taxes. (And, just as I get the tax break whether I raise up solid citizens or hooligans, churches get the break on the assumption that they are funding good works – the chief good work being their simple existence as houses of worship.)
Conclusion: there is no sense in which churches are getting a ‘gift’ by not paying income taxes, unless one assumes ALL revenues any of us receive is property of the state, which can then graciously give it back to us. This is a totalitarian assumption in the root meaning of the word.
Note that this is not an argument that churches should or should not be taxed, merely that being allowed to keep your own income is never a ‘gift’ in a free society.
August 21st, 2012 | 6:18 pm
Joseph,
I don’t think the use of the word gift is helpful. Let’s call it a tax break. Getting a tax break isn’t exactly being allowed to keep your own income. It’s being exempted from a tax you would otherwise have to pay (and other people have to pay). It you make $100,000 and would ordinarily have to pay 20% in taxes ($20,000), and you get enough deductions so you only have to pay $15,000 in taxes instead of $20,000, the government isn’t letting you keep $85,000 of your own money. It’s giving you a $5000 tax break. It never made any kind of claim on $80,000 of your income. It made a claim on $20,000 and gave you a break so you wouldn’t have to pay that much.
Of course, the Republican proposal at the moment is do away with all of those breaks and lower the rate for everyone. The problem is what breaks they really intend to do away with, and whether it’s politically feasible to do away with the popular deductions.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact