Increasingly, the name of the game is, according to David Gibson, “Golden Rule” Christianity: love your neighbor as yourself. This is what President Obama cited in explaining his support for same-sex marriage.

Of course, the gloss both Gibson and Obama give on this injunction is contestable. For them, respecting someone means endorsing or tolerating their choices and demands. (I recognize the difference between endorsement and toleration, but equivocate here because they equivocate.)

But cannot loving one’s neighbor as oneself also require that we hold them accountable for their sins and bear witness to them about the truth? In this context, by the way, toleration doesn’t require endorsement. It simply recognizes that in some instances the way to correct sin or error is not through punishment, but rather through admonition.

I’m tempted to argue that the position the President has taken represents the triumph of John Locke, who defined toleration as “the chief chracteristic mark of the true Church.” Locke meant in the first instance (more…)

Davidson College’s Board of Trustees is considering whether the institution’s requirement that its president be a Presbyterian should be upheld or abandoned.  The considerations advanced are familiar: the supposed tension between excellence and an increasingly limited pool of eligible applicants; how the historic relationship contributes to present identity; and so on.

Davidson’s case is unusual and interesting because it seems to be one of the few mainline Presbyterian-affiliated colleges to have continued to uphold this requirement, while being perhaps the most academically prestigious of them all.  An hypothesis: if there are “academic” difficulties in continuing to uphold this requirement, might it not have more to do with the diminution of the PCUSA than with anything else?  A pool that was once probably large enough to provide an ample number of qualified prospects is indeed shrinking.

There is of course another issue, not really addressed by the article.  If one defines “excellence” in purely secular terms, then it almost goes without saying that using denominational affiliation as a filter will have a cost in terms of quality.  But why must one define excellence in purely secular terms?

In Davidson’s case, that ship has probably already sailed.  But there remain plenty of denominationally-affiliated colleges and universities where the ship is sitll in the port (or perhaps hasn’t even been built yet).  There is plenty of evidence that intellectual rigor and fidelity are not inconsistent with one another.  Secularism and fundamentalism aren’t the only two options.

By now, almost everyone has heard or read that Vanderbilt University adopted an “all comers” policy for its student groups that has the effect of forcing some religious groups to choose between the benefits that attend recognition (access to university facilities and funding) and fidelity to their mission.

The Tennessee state legislature–which provides a non-negligble amount of financial support for the University–struck back, demnding that Vanderbilt either rescind its all-comers policy or apply it even-handedly to all groups (including those most sacrosanct of student organizations, fraternities and sororities).

But Tennessee’s governor Bill Haslam has announced that he will veto this bill.

“It is counter-intuitive to make campus organizations open their membership and leadership positions to anyone and everyone, even when potential members philosophically disagree with the core values and beliefs of the organization,” Haslam said in a prepared statement.

“Although I disagree with Vanderbilt’s policy, as someone who strongly believes in limited government, I think it is inappropriate for government to mandate the policies of a private institution.”

David French isn’t buying Haslam’s argument: (more…)

You don’t have to look too hard to find someone writing about the future of American higher education.  Everyone recognizes that “change” is in the air, but many don’t have much “hope.”

For another site, I wrote about a couple of proposals, which (taken together) amount to a call for the higher ed equivalent of Obamacare.  If you want to reflect some more on the politics of this, you could do worse than going here and here.  To those students and colleagues who would welcome an even larger federal role in higher education, I say: be careful what you wish for.  Someday (perhaps soon), the Republicans will be in charge.

Contributing in predictable ways to this political moment are those who look for ways to make what goes on inside those ivy-covered walls more appealing to an increasingly skeptical public.  The best example of the conventional wisdom I’ve seen was recommended to me (on Facebook) by my own institution’s public relations office.  This President of a small liberal arts college seems to want to turn his institution into a miniature urban service university:

What must such a re-imagining entail? Among the things we must pursue:

We must continue to champion “high impact practices” such as internships, independent study, community service, off-campus employment and study abroad experiences designed to deepen civic engagement.

We must connect with the communities in which we live and be a resource to solving community challenges. We must lead the way in creating sustainable communities, respectful of the environment and connected to local tradesmen and businesses.

We must recommit to “citizenship” as a foundation of the academy and model citizenship by addressing the real problems of our state, national and global communities.

We must bring the world to our campuses and ensure that our students have opportunities to learn through their engagement with the world.

There’s nothing in his little essay about inducting students into the Great Conversation, about leisure, or about quiet contemplation.  It’s all busyness.  Oh, for an Irish monastery!

Today, Rep. Paul Ryan delivered a speech at Georgetown University, an institution some of whose faculty had recently criticized him.

Here’s the crux of the letter (signed by roughly 90 faculty–I recognize a few of the names, including E.J. Dionne, Jr., and note only that precious few political scientists and economists are among the signatories):

[W]e would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress – “a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.” Catholic bishops recently wrote that “the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.”

In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.

Leaving aside for a moment the canard about Ayn Rand, which Ryan dismisses as an “urban legend,” the question is how any government program or budget can embody the “Gospel values of compassion and love.”  I’d like to highlight a few of the points that Ryan makes that could be taken as a response. (more…)

A few days ago, our friends at National Review Online editorialized against the so-called “People’s Rights Amendment,” which is an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s holding in the Citizens United case, a holding that is anathema to the President and many of his supporters.  Matt Franck has found for us the text of the amendment, which he rightly characterizes as “the worst idea the left has had in many a moon,” though, to be sure, it has lots of competition.

Let me join the chorus by making explicit a consideration that I think is implicit in the objections raised thus far.  Amog the associations that would be denied any sort of constitutional status by this proposed amendment are churches.  It’s hard to see how my individual freedom of religion could mean anything significant apart from my ability to congregate with others called to corporate worship.  Now, I know that corporate bodies of worshippers are subject now to all sorts of incidental governmental regulations, that the freedom of religion is not (and ought not to be) absolute.

But imagine a world in which once I step outside the privacy of my closet, my corporate religious behavior is entirely subject to government regulation.  Imagine, for example, how Hosanna-Tabor would have been decided.

Actually, it doesn’t require much of an imagination.  All we have to do is look at Vanderbilt University …and China.

Well, alright, I am perhaps exaggerating.  It’s quite likely that voters would display enough good sense not to prmit governments to exercise that sort of  comprehensive regulatory power.  We should rely more on a vigilant citizenry than on a court whose membership depends upon the whims of presidents and whose opinions are all too often attuned  to cosmopolitan (and secular) elites.  But the first act of vigilance is to prevent the enactment of a measure whose (perhaps unintended) consequences are potentially so far-reaching.

Paul Ryan has famously (or infamously?)  claimed that the budget he proposed for the next fiscal year is a product of his encounter with Roman Catholic social teaching.

The bishop who heads the USCCB committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development disagrees:

 As pastors and teachers, we remind Congress that these are economic, political and moral choices with human consequences. Prior to the House considering the budget resolution, the bishops offered several moral criteria to guide these difficult budget decisions:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

Congress faces a difficult task to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen and Acton Institute President Rev. Robert Sirico have come to Ryan’s defense.  Here’s Thiessen: (more…)

Much ink has been spilled (if that’s still an intelligible expression in this digital age) about the likely evangelical resistance to voting for Mitt Romney.  But, to my mind, the recent Pew poll paints a different picture.  Here’s what we learn:

• Protestants favor Romney over Obama 51-43.
• White non-Hispanic evangelicals favor Romney over Obama 73-20.
• White non-Hispanic mainline Protestants favor Romney over Obama 50-42.
• Weekly church attenders favor Romney over Obama 56-38.
• White non-Hispanic evangelical weekly attenders favor Romney over Obama 80-16.

In other words, the most religiously observant white evangelicals are more likely–indeed, significantly more likely– than their less observant brethren to say they’re going to vote for Romney. (Evangelicals who attend less than once a week favor Romney over Obama 58-31.)

Need I say more?

This morning, my wife was recounting a conversation she’d had with another parent at a local homeschooling co-op where she teaches and our children take classes.  Her friend–speaking parent to parent, not parent to teacher–stated quite emphatically that we parents are consumers of our children’s education, and should (I guess) act like consumers in our interactions with their teachers.

Now, I’m as guilty as the next guy of from time to time applying the market metaphor to education.  I am, after all, employed by a private liberal arts college that relies heavily on tuition for revenue.  But I relatively frequently tell students (especially when I’m trying to be provocative) that virtually everything that they regard as unpleasant about their educational experience (having to see me in class thrice weekly, for example) is a consequence of the way in which education is treated economically.  What students and their parents pay for (using that term loosely) is a credential, which requires that credits be assigned to classes and work be assigned to students in order to earn the grade and the credits.  To be sure, since education is to some degree about attaining and demonstrating mastery, some sort of performance is essential to it, but not the sort that is bureaucratized, routinized, and regulated the way higher education (and not only higher education) has become.

When we regard education as a product to be consumed, the relationship between teacher and student is corrupted.  I no longer can be presumed to have authority (more…)

By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard, whether you wanted to or not, about Hilary Rosen’s unkind comments about Ann Romney.

Hilary Rosen, a political consultant who advises the Democratic National Committee, questioned on CNN Wednesday night whether Ann Romney understands the economic issues facing women.

“His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Rosen said on Anderson Cooper’s AC360 show. “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we–why we worry about their future.”

I posted something very brief about this on my Facebook page, which elicited a comment from one of my former students (many of whom are distinguished by the fact that they disagree–often quite vehemently–with me…but that’s a subject for another day).  My student–a smart lawyer educated at a very good law school, some of whose professors read this blog from time to time (you know who you are)–suggested that Rosen’s intention–executed extremely gracelessly–was to point to the silver spoons in the mouths of both Romneys.

Perhaps so, but that might seem to be a somewhat odd comment coming from a woman who has had a long career as a Washington lobbyist. (more…)

I just stumbled across this piece on the Acton Institute site, which called my attention to the fuss kicked up by NPR over what the adjective “Christian” means.  I find myself in agreement with the catholicity of Rev. Robert Sirico’s response–the part not quoted by the NPR blogger:

Christianity is and always has been a religion that “receives” its faith rather than one that “invents” it. Hence, a basic definition of “Who are the Christians?” begins with an adherence, doctrinally, to the ancient Creeds of the Church, beginning with the Apostles Creed (believed to have been of apostolic origin, the Apostles having in turn received their mandate from Christ Himself) and continuing on to the faith articulated at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Orange,  Hippo and  Quicunque Vult (aka, The Athanasian Creed), all of which were formative for the belief of Christians. The traditions that would agree with this ecumenical Trinitarian confession (most Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, et al.) have historically recognized that whatever other doctrinal differences may separate them, this is the meaning they share when they use the term “Christian.”

The contemporary noise is generated by those who object to the allegedly exclusive use of the adjective by theologically (and often politically) conservative Christians.  Perhaps some of them do indeed mean to exclude those with whom they (politically) disagree as “un-Christian.”  But I’d give them the benefit of the doubt (more…)

I was prepared–for once in a blue moon–to like this column by the Washington Post‘s resident liberal Catholic scold, but, in the end there were too many jarring notes.

To begin with what I rather liked:

I want to suggest that what should most bother Christians of all political persuasions is that there are right and wrong ways to apply religion to politics, and much that’s happening now involves the wrong ways. Moreover, popular Christianity often seems to denigrate rather than celebrate intellectual life and critical inquiry. This not only ignores Christian giants of philosophy and science but also plays into some of the very worst stereotypes inflicted upon religious believers….

[B]ecause Christians have a realistic and non-utopian view of human nature, they should be especially alive to the ambiguities and ambivalences of politics. The philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain captured this well in reflecting on Augustine’s writings. “If Augustine is a thorn in the side of those who would cure the universe once and for all,” she wrote, “he similarly torments critics who disdain any project of human community, or justice, or possibility.”

I can even assent to this, provided there is sufficient nuance in what we mean by liberation: (more…)

I just learned from the Heritage Foundation that the Obama Administration has created a panel to discuss establishing a measure to assess our national happiness.

The good people at Heritage have more than a few misgivings about this undertaking, and not just about our ability to assess happiness by means of social science.  I applaud the recognition that there’s more to life than economic prosperity, that GDP is a deeply flawed measure of  political health and success, but want no part of this undertaking.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence does assert that human beings by nature have a right to pursue happiness, but that surely doesn’t give our government the responsibility to assure our happiness.  And you can be certain that anything the government starts to assess will sooner or later become an explicit object of public policy.  We need to remember one of the things Alexis de Tocqueville feared the most: a government that “willingly works for [our] happiness; but…wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that.”

I’d rather remind people that their happiness depends upon many things other than those that can be affected by public policy, some of which depend upon their own efforts and relationships, and others of which depend upon–speaking without any great theological sophistication here–divine providence.  Properly understood, our pursuit of happiness is a limit on government, not a claim on it.

None of this is to say that government has nothing to do with our happiness.  To take an obvious example, policies that excessively burden our liberty or depress private sector job creation might well affect our happiness.  But we already have a way to register our response to those aspects of our happiness that can be affected by government.  It’s called voting.

The indispensable Jennifer Roback Morse argues that privatizing marriage is impossible.  I’m persuaded that she’s right with respect to the position she chooses to debate, but I wonder how she’d argue against (?) a different position, one that required everyone who chose to affiliate with another to enter into a state-defined civil union (which could not be called marriage) and left the definition and solemnization of marriage to churches.  This is not the privatization of marriage as she defines it, but it does deprive the advocates of same-sex unions of the ability to use political or judicial power to claim the cultural high ground.  It protects those who understand marriage as Roback does from having to concede in the face of those assertions of political or judicial power.

I’m aware of at least some of the arguments against this position.  Above all, it could be said to represent a retreat in the high-stakes public argument of the meaning of marriage.  If you think that that argument can still be won (which requires more than simply being convinced of the quality of the arguments on the side of “traditional” marriage), then you’d be foolish to retreat in this way.

In addition, you could argue that nothing prevents the advocates of same-sex unions from using political or judicial power to define their preferred position as marriage, once they were able to do so.  According to this argument, defenders of traditional marriage may well gain nothing through this form of privatization.

Finally, to the degree that the law represents the cultural high ground, might it not follow from the form of privatization I’ve sketched that “marriage” would eventually lose its cultural heft and that civil union would do the work and bear the social imprimatur that now attaches to marriage?  In other words, wouldn’t this proposal at best postpone and at worst ensure the cultural defeat of traditional marriage?

So, dear readers, what do you think?

Ross Douthat offers a generous and lengthy response to my earlier post on his exchange with Yuval Levin.

He’s right that the growth of evangelicalism has likely hit a plateau and hasn’t compensated for the decline of the mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches.  A higher proportion of people are unchurched now than previously.  One of the causes, he suggests, is the public face that conservative churches offer potential congregants:

I agree with Knippenberg that it’s rare to find political agitation per se dominating the everyday life of a successful congregation. But I’ve spent enough time in churches both liberal-leaning and conservative to see the ways in which a more general orientation toward activism that’s almost entirely external to the life of the congregation — whether it’s “social justice” ministries, pro-life activity, or some combination thereof — can define and limit the public identity of the church in ways that turns off potential congregants, while also leaving the church’s internal culture weaker and thinner than it needs to be. This tendency is part of what undid liberal Protestantism in the 1970s and 1980s, and I think it’s a significant problem for both conservative Catholicism and Protestantism today.

Certainly the evidence offered by Unchristian suggests that from the outside, the appearance of “culture wars” homogeneity and non-relativism (which seems to some to be harshly judgmental) may be off-putting.  And while relational evangelism might begin to dismantle the simple stereotypes (more…)

National Review‘s Katrina Trinko argues that Mitt Romney has an “evangelical problem.”

In state after state, evangelicals have sent Mitt Romney a clear message: We’re just not that into you.

Some evangelicals do pull the lever for Romney. But consistently there is a wide gap between Romney’s support among evangelicals and his support among other groups. On average, there is a 19-point difference between Romney’s support among non-evangelicals and his support among evangelicals in Republican primaries, according to ABC News’s survey of primary states with exit- or entrance-polling data available.

That’s a sizeable gap–and one that has complicated Romney’s path to the nomination.

I’ve looked at the exit polls too, and find a somewhat more complicated story to tell.  Looking at seven southern states (I include Florida, which is kinda sorta southern in the northern part of the state), Gingrich ranges from a low of 25% (Tennessee) to a high of 52% (Georgia) among self-identified evangelicals; Santorum ranges from a low of 19% (Florida) to a high of 42% (Tennessee); and Romney ranges from 19% (Georgia) to 36% (Florida).  Gingrich “wins” three states (South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia), while Santorum takes the other four.  Romney comes in second in three of the states (South Carolina, Florida, and Oklahoma–two of which are ties), and third in the others (but always within 5 points of second).

Now, if you regard (as I do) Gingrich’s South Carolina and Georgia performances as atypical, then his support among evangelicals drops to levels barely above those of Romney.  Stated another way, when Gingrich settles back down to earth among evangelical voters, Romney’s support goes up a little and Santorum’s support goes up a lot. (more…)

I discuss the thinking behind the assertion of a right to contraception in a post for the Georgia Family Council site.

My argument in a nutshell: many of the people who argue for such a right don’t simply mean a right to be free from others’ interference; they mean subsidized access.  Our government could legally create such an entitlement, or acknowledge it as a positive (as opposed to natural) human right, but the constitutional right to religious freedom has, in our polity, a higher status.

There’s nothing earth-shattering here, but too many people just don’t get it.

In his review of Charles Murray’s new book, Yuval Levin offers this as one of the reasons why Fishtown has fallen so far behind Belmont:

[T]he cultural disaster Murray describes seems to be a failing of America’s moral (and therefore largely its religious) institutions. And although he does not put it this way, Coming Apartis a scathing indictment of American social conservatism.

Social conservatism serves two kinds of purposes in a liberal society: We might call them justice and order. In the cause of justice, it speaks up for the weak and the oppressed, defending them from abuse by the powerful, and vindicating basic human dignity. In the cause of order, it helps us combat our human failings and vices, and argues for self-discipline and responsibility. Think of abolition on the one hand and temperance on the other.

In our time, American social conservatism has much to be proud of as a movement for justice: Social conservatives devote themselves to the pro-life cause, to human rights, and to the plight of the poor abroad. But American social conservatism has almost entirely lost interest in the cause of order—in standing up for clean living, for self-discipline and restraint, for resisting temptation and meeting basic responsibilities. The institutions of American Christianity—some of which would actually stand a chance of being taken seriously by the emerging lower class—are falling down on the job, as their attention is directed to more exciting causes, in no small part because the welfare state has overtaken some of their key social functions.

I greatly admire Levin, but (to put it mildly) have some doubts about his analysis here. (more…)

Following in the footsteps of the 2008 Huckabee campaign, Rick Santorum has a “secret army” of homeschoolers.  Well, it’s not really a secret.  The real question is: how many more times can the same article be written?

There has been a lot of talk about Rick Santorum as the “second coming” (so to speak) of compassionate conservatism.  He has spoken eloquently about the needs of the least among us and of the inadequacy of government–any government, however large–in addressing those needs.  By my lights, that’s the core of compassionate conservatism.  Add to it an appreciation of the power of the market as the tide that lifts all boats, making all more capable of caring for themselves and for their misfortunate neighbors, and you have a message that ought to resonate with all the conservative constituencies.

A related narrative has to do with the relative generosity of conservatives in comparison with their liberal brethren.  As Arthur Brooks found a few years ago–in a study that others have corroborated–those who identify as conservative give more to charity than those who identify as liberal.

And there have been some spectacular examples of liberals willing to be generous with other people’s money, but not with their own.

Which brings us to Rick Santorum, whose rate of charitable giving is above the national average, but hardly deep in compassionate conservative territory.   His leading Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has been far more generous, as his President Obama, though in the case of our President, there seems to be an historical connection between his rate of charitable giving and the scope of his political ambition.

I appreciate Senator Santorum’s explanation–special needs children are very expensive.  And I’m not about to urge him to change the way he allocates his income for merely political reasons.

But talking the talk is less believeable when you can with relative ease be accused of not walking the walk, of not putting your money where your mouth is.

Stephen M. Klugewicz offers a gentle correction to Rick Santorum’s objection to John F. Kennedy’s vision of church-state relations.

Santorum did not have to mischaracterize Kennedy’s words, for there is much to criticize in them as written. In the Houston speech, Kennedy did say that he believed “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” What Kennedy meant by that is not entirely clear, though he went on to explain that his vision meant an America in which “no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

If Kennedy came close here to denying that his faith would have any influence on his decisions as president, he was, for better or worse, following in an American Catholic tradition when trying to reassure the Protestant majority of Catholics’ reliability as good citizens of the republic. The Houston speech needs to be seen in this light.

Fair enough, as are Klugewicz’s comments about the historical support Catholics have offered separationism as an antidote to the informal Protestant establishment of the 19th century. But he overlooks another 19th century Catholic response, which amounts to asking for an  accommodation of religion. There may be reasons to reject public support of all eligible institutions that serve both religious and secular ends, but there are also reasons to support such a program, many of which are offered in this book, which I’m reviewing for another journal.

Yes, Catholics might profit from separationism, but they’d arguably also profit from a regime that embraced and supported religious pluralism.

Responding to a somewhat intemperate remark by Rick Santorum, Arizona State University’s Lawrence  M. Krauss tells us “why we need college degrees more than we need faith.”

I could quarrel with him on many grounds, but I’ll focus on this paragraph:

An educated workforce, especially in areas of science and engineering, is the key to economic health in the 21st century, and an informed populace is the basis of a healthy democracy. If it is true that education tends to reduce religious faith then we have to decide which is ultimately more valuable.

He has argued that “those who are more educated have a greater tendency to question their religious faith,” apparently because they have learned “to question pre-conceived notions and to base conclusions on evidence,” which are important abilities in a 21st century economy and democracy.  I agree with these propositions, though with an important caveat.  I think that one of the principal purposes of higher education is to help students cultivate the ability to think critically and carefully, to understand what can be established rationally and empirically, and what cannot.  In this little essay, Professor Krauss hasn’t convinced me that he’s learned the latter lesson.

As for what can be established empirically, while it’s probably true that a preponderance of Ph.D.-level scientists are not orthodox believers, (more…)

The Politico, not exactly the least favorable of press outlets to the President, has posted a story about the “Quiet Fade-Out” of the much ballyhooed Obama Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  It issued a very wordy report a couple of years ago, which I duly read and commented on for the Fall, 2010 issue of The City.  The wasn’t much new in the report, except for an extension of the faith-based initiative to environmental policy and an attempt to engage various religious diaspora groups in reaching out to their brethren back home.  And it dodged, as the President consistently has, the contentious issue of religious hiring rights.

Now, the article tells us, the council has “gone dark.”  Eleven new members were appointed in February 2011, but the remainder haven’t been named, supposedly still undergoing vetting by the White House.  Still, we’re told, the first council was a success:

More than 70 percent of the council’s recommendations, detailed in the March  2010 report, have been fully or partially implemented, according to the White  House. Those recommendations include opening the government’s 13th faith-based  and neighborhood partnerships center at the Environmental Protection Agency and  encouraging the president to hold annual Father’s Day events at the White House  to honor exemplary fathers.

Obama also signed an executive order in November 2010, boosting federal  oversight of faith-based groups that receive federal funds.

Those are the examples the White House can come up with?

I’m a little mystified by the council–and the office’s–low profile. (more…)

For the past few years, I have been associated with the Georgia Family Council’s Gaby Fellowship program.  It’s a great opportunity for undergraduates and recent graduates to be an integral part of a good organization, gain experience in the world of state-level public policy, and put that experience in a serious philosophical and theological  context.  I’ve been very impressed by the Gaby Fellows I’ve met and hope that there are readers of this blog who can point a few more potential Fellows this way.

The application deadline is March 16, 2012.

Ross Douthat responds to an essay by Matthew Yglesias that itself is a commentary on the argument over Charles Murray’s new book.

There’s plenty to discuss, but I’d like to focus on one point that Yglesias makes:

The obvious place to look for an explanation of the declining marriage rate is the vast increase in the economic opportunities available to women. Newly empowered and less dependent on male economic support, women have become somewhat choosier and are now less likely to be married than in the past. You can perhaps make the case that this is bad for kids, and that as a society we should return to total economic disempowerment of women in order to force people into two-parent households.

He also argues that many of our indicators of social success (for example, educational attainment, teen pregnancy, and violent crime) are headed in the right direction.  So what’s the problem?  If we’re headed in the right direction with fewer intact two-parent families, who needs the family, especially if the price to be paid for the traditional family is the “total economic disempowerment of women”?

“Bracketing” the needs and interests of the children, Douthat points to a “happiness gap” between affluent and working-class whites (to former of whom are more likely to have stable marriages than the latter), not to mention a decline overall in women’s happiness.  I won’t argue with that evidence or with those considerations, but how is it possible to “bracket” the needs and interests of children?

Yesterday in class I was discussing Alexis de Tocqueville’s presentation and analysis of American associational life as a prophylactic to individualism and the “soft despotism” that might ensue from our failure to take responsibility for “civil society.”  I asked my students–almost all of whom had participated in youth sports growing up–how many of the coaches, officials, and other volunteers they had encountered in these programs were government employees.  The answer was none.  Then who were they?  As I expected, the answer was parents.  Can a typical single parent coach or volunteer in these programs?  (To be sure, I know some who do, but I also know that all the programs with which I’m acquainted would collapse without the time and energy that certain parents–men and women both–give to them.)

If, as we must, we think about our obligation to care for the welfare of our children, I don’t see who we can regard the intact two-parent family as optional or dispensable.  Our social indicators may be moving in the “right” direction, but I have my doubts about many of those statistics.  For example, one of the reasons for the decline in rates of violent crime may be the decline in the number of young men.  And don’t get me started about “educational attainment” when there’s so much evidence suggesting that years in school don’t necessarily imply actual education.

But I return to Yglesias’ assumption that “family” requires the “total economic disempowerment of women.”  Why?  To be sure, a happy family requires sacrifices from both partners.  The men I know who take fatherhood seriously also make economic and career choices that are “suboptimal” if the goal is simply to maximize income.  That is, they recognize their responsibilities as men and fathers (which, by the way, are affirmed by their wives); they aren’t children who believe that the one who dies with the most toys wins.

Yglesias seems to think that human life is all about wealth and leisure (understood as play, not as the cultivation of human excellence).  Perhaps on that impoverished view he can think of marriage as not necessarily a good bargain for contemporary men and women.  But if happiness is more than consumption and if we’re meant (dare I say called?) to cultivate the full range of our capacities (including those for love and caring), then perhaps men and women both can only truly flourish in marriage.

In the end, as most of the readers of this websire know, the argument isn’t just about marriage; it’s about the nature of human fulfillment.