It’s another to do so with sophomoric arguments.
Like this, from someone who ought to know better.
Former President’s Council on Bioethics member and
Harvard Law Professor, Mary Ann Glendon, has told the University of
Notre Dame to take the honor it wished to bestow upon her and kindly
have it back. Why? Evidently, she doesn’t think that President Obama
shares the same notions of social justice as the she and the Roman
Now, it would appear she is breaking Catholic hearts around the
world by telling one of their most beloved universities that Laetare
Medal, which was to be awarded to her at commencement, isn’t going to
be hers simply because President Obama is going to be awarded an
honorary degree as well at the same ceremony. Appalled that such a man
would be gracing the same stage as she, Glendon will have no part of it.
This is not a serious argument. It’s a snarky personal attack on Glendon.
In what way does President Obama differ from Roman
Catholics on principles of justice? Do you mean social justice? In that
he supports giving access to healthcare for all Americans? Or perhaps
ensuring that all people, regardless of the color of their skin, can go
to quality public or private schools?
(Actually, he doesn’t believe in school vouchers, which would enable families to make that choice. But never mind the facts…)
Aside from the admonition from American bishops that
“not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral
principles” [sic]–which can only mean one thing really in Obama’s
case–being pro-choice, I am struggling to see what other core
principles President Obama, a Christian and deeply religious man,
fundamentally is in defiance of in Roman Catholicism.
On what is the assertion that Obama is a deeply religious man based?
I’m befuddled as the University of Notre Dame leaders are. I can find no sense in this argument at all.
Which one? Glendon’s, or the bishops’? Or…the one here on the AMA’s ethics journal blog?