Customer Reviews

Clash Of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Here in Princeton, New Jersey there are a lot of highly educated people, including especially university professors and graduate students. Sometimes they share their viewpoints with the rest of us by pasting bumper stickers to their cars, usually older model Saabs or Volvos. I saw one the other day: "I do my part to keep the religious right angry." It conveys a widespread understanding among liberal elites that religious conservatives are not motivated by reason, at least not in their opinions about social issues, like abortion, euthanasia, and gay rights, which, from time to time, are the subject of public debate. Rather, they work from "prejudices" unthinkingly imported from their traditional religious beliefs into the political arena. Liberals believe that these conservatives would impose--not persuade or convince because their positions are not based in reason--their religious belief on the reasonable majority. A new book by Princeton professor Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies (ISI Books, 2001) challenges this understanding of religious conservatism. George, a Harvard and Oxford educated philosopher who holds the McCormick Chair of Jurisprudence once occupied by Princeton demigod Woodrow Wilson, sets out to make the case that the moral views of conservative Christians (often shared by observant Jews and other believers) are rationally defensible. Actually, he even goes farther, arguing throughout this 300-page work that "Judaeo-Christian moral teaching can be shown to be rationally superior to orthodox secular moral beliefs."

A remarkable thing about The Clash of Orthodoxies is its accessibility. George attained his high standing in the academy by writing books and articles addressed to scholars in highly specialized areas of law and philosophy. In this latest work, however, he addresses the wider public. The Clash of Orthodoxies is a pleasure to read. It is lively and engaging, and avoids academic jargon and unnecessary technical analysis. (When one senses that the details of an argument have been sacrificed for readability, one can go to his own and others' scholarly works which are cited in the numerous endnotes and which discuss a point in far greater depth.) On the other hand, John Grisham has nothing to fear. This is not a beach reading. This is an analytical work; it takes up the thorny perennial questions of how we organize our lives together--issues of life and death, rights and freedoms. And the author does not take the easy way out by recourse to rhetoric or facile reasoning. Counterarguments to traditional morality's answers are consistently engaged. Professor George's brand of conservatism owes little to the pundits, politicians and journalists on the right. The author is genuinely interested in a debate on the merits; he eschews partisanship and always argues in a spirit of goodwill.

The Clash of Orthodoxies will do much then to enhance the quality of public debate on controversial issues such as abortion, euthanasia, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, marriage and sexual morality, and the role the of the courts in resolving such issues. It is greatly needed. The orthodoxy of secular liberalism is dominant in the elite sector of our culture. The writings of political theorists and judges, such as John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin and Justice William Brennan, have made the case for the "liberal secularism," as Professor George calls it, and its understanding of man and government. So now many of us are at least a little wary of religious-minded conservatives. Even if not bomb-throwers, do they not constitute a standing threat to freedom? Are they not modern day puritans who, according to one definition, are people who live in the fear that some one, somewhere is having a good time? In my view, the hegemony of liberal secularism in the academy and elsewhere is not just because license, especially sexual license, is an easy sell. It is also explained by the absence of an opposing intellectual force. And this is why The Clash of Orthodoxies may be destined to play a critical part in making our democracy more deliberative--which, everyone should agree, would be a good thing. Professor George cannot be dismissed as unintelligent or uninformed. He is intellectually brilliant, highly credentialed, and understands academic liberalism as only someone who makes his living in the academy itself can understand it. And he advances impressive arguments that shake up, and could even topple, its prevailing assumptions. His philosophical natural law theory sets forth a reason-based understanding of the inviolability of human life (from conception), for example, and an understanding of sex and marriage, which will flummox efforts to wave away conservative views as mere "religious intolerance." In The Clash of Orthodoxies, American social conservatives have a powerful
voice; and liberals have an intellectual opponent with whom they will have to reckon.

I'll keep my review short. Simply put, Professor George, a former student of John Finnis at Oxford, has created one of the best defenses of the Catholic Natural Law tradition, with no appeal to Divine Revelation -- which is an important point to make since your average skeptic considers Christian ethics as relying primarily, if not solely, on "irrational" faith. The book is primarily concerned with the effects of ethical subjectivism on legal/social matters; however, George nearly covers the whole gamut of ethical issues, including abortion, homosexuality, and contraception -- all in a clear, succinct manner. The first chapter alone is worth the purchase of the book; it is certainly one of the best essays I have read on the truth of Natual Law orthodoxy and Theistic Moral Realism, including a refutation of Atheistic Moral Realism (a la Iris Murdoch) via a debate with Josh Dever, who represents what George calls "liberal orthodoxy."

In order to get the most out of this book, one should also read George's 'Making Men Moral,' a defense of the social conservative position (e.g., communities banning pornography). If one enjoys George's work, he should also check out other books published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). ISI is one of the leading organizations promoting conservative thought in academia. Their list of books is quite impressive.

In The Clash of Orthodoxies, a limpidly written and deftly argued collections of essays, Robert George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and one of the most important natural-law philosophers of our time, wants "to show that Christians and other believers are right to defend their positions on key moral issues as rationally superior to the alternatives proposed by secular liberals and those within the religious denominations who have abandoned traditional moral principles in favor of secularist morality." He triumphantly succeeds in this ambitious endeavor, and as a result our understanding of the cultural and moral struggle that convulses our country is vastly enriched.

To select one example from the numerous ones available in the book, Professor George's essay "The Concept of Public Morality" is a masterly clarification of an area that has become a terrible intellectual mess, a situation engendered by the reckless libertarianism of both the left and right. For instance, pornography is now an unavaidable part of our daily lives, and Professor George rightly contends that "where pornography flourishes, as it does in our own culture, it erodes important shared public understandings of sexuality and sexual morality on which the health of the institutions of marriage and family life in any culture vitally depend. This is a classic case in which the accumulation of apparently private choices of private parties has big public consequences." The stability (or what little stability is left) of what Professor George calls our "moral ecology" depends on the restoration of this kind of understanding in the place of the prevailing relativism that thwarts any serious reflection on the notion of public morality.

Professor George brings to all the complicated questions he explores a fairmindedness coupled with a moral position utterly devoted to the cause of life and the vindication of human dignity. This view is in emphatic opposition to the culture of death that is at the center of secular orthodoxy. He summarizes his view with characteristic precision and elegance: "It is the liberalism . . . of the rule of law, democratic self-government, subsidiarity, social solidarity, private property, limited government, equal protection, and basic human freedoms, such as those of speech, press, assembly, and above all, religion. This . . . is a decidedly old-fashioned liberalism -- if you will, a 'conservative liberalism.' It is the liberalism of Lincoln and the American founders, of Newman and Chesterton, of the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II: A liberalism of life."

Professor George makes his case for this "liberalism of life" with uncommon rigor and clarity. As America inevitably confronts complex moral and political issues that seriously threaten to undermine our humanity, the thinking found in The Clash of Orthodoxies is precisely the orthodoxy needed to advance a rational culture of life.

I can say without qualification that the Clash of Orthodoxies is one of the most important books of the last decade in the area of moral theory. There is simply no better reasoned case for the culture of life and no better examination of the philosophic heart of the debate between that culture and the many anti-life commitments of secular liberalism in contemporary America. In short, The Clash of Orthodoxies is an indispensable book, and it should be read by anyone who has an interest in engaging the moral arguments at the center of public discourse on the momentous topics of the culture of life.

Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, one of the most prestigious political science chairs in the country; he serves as director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, a dynamic new program centered at Princeton University and dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in constitutional studies and political thought; and he holds advanced degrees in law and legal theory from Harvard and Oxford. As one might expect, George's defense of traditional moral values evinces a high degree of philosophic sophistication, rivaling that of any moral theorist writing across the political spectrum today, and he is more than a match for liberal and leftist moral theorists such as John Rawls and Peter Singer.

Even so, no potential reader of this book should allow George's philosophic sophistication to give him pause. Indeed, the Clash of Orthodoxies manages simultaneously to communicate the essential core of the philosophic disputes at the center of the culture wars today and yet remain at a level easily accessible to the general reader and thoughtful non-specialist. Another virtue of George's books is its overarching fairness. George is painstakingly accurate, fair, and perhaps even overly charitable in his exposition and critique of the views of such prominent secular liberal individualist moral theorists as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. In fact, George demonstrates the extraordinary level of his commitment to a truly rigorous conception of fairness and accuracy in political debate by including in his book the full text of article-length critiques of his own work (rather than mere summaries or selective quotations) by liberal scholars such as Josh Dever and James Fleming, a practice almost unheard of in a book of this sort. Moreover, George's highly sophisticated philosophic analysis of liberal thinkers such as John Rawls suggests he understands those thinkers as well or better than they understand themselves. George's erudition and razor-sharp analytic mind, at times, are breathtaking.

The scope of George's book is quite broad, and it is well organized into three sections, involving the "clash of orthodoxies" in the public square, in the courts, and in the Catholic Church. Each of the three sections is further sub-divided into discrete but related and complementary essays, which are ideal for dipping into and also make the book a useful reference tool. The section on the public square examines issues surrounding the culture of life, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and the concept of public morality; the section on the courts examines a number of "life" issues related to the Constitution, the scope of judicial review, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions, and the relationship of positive law to natural law; and the section on the Catholic Church involves a discussion of issues such as liberalism and Catholicism, abortion and Catholic political leaders, Catholic participation in debates over bio-ethics and public policy, and the relationship of faith and reason.

The last of these is directly related to George's main thesis in the Clash of Orthodoxies: The superiority as a matter of reason or rationality of traditional Judeo-Christian morality to its anti-life rival(s). As George, writes: "My criticism of secular liberal views is not that they are contrary to [religious] faith; it is that they fail the test of reason." Indeed, George demonstrates through a series of complex and sophisticated moral inquiries into areas such as abortion, homosexual conduct, euthanasia, and the nature of marriage that the values of moral traditionalism can vanquish secular liberalism on secular liberalism's own epistemic terms: the appeal to reasoned argument rather than to religious authority. In short, human reason confirms the moral soundness of the culture of life, reveals the moral errors at the heart of anti-life belief systems, and is thus life's first and best defense against the recent inroads of anti-life movements in the cultural, political, and judicial arenas

The challenge of social liberalism and the recognition of the need for forthright reasoned engagement of anti-life intellectuals in the public sphere has awakened a new interest in the natural law tradition among non-Catholics, and therefore while George's approach is a philosophical one squarely in the Catholic tradition, it will be of great interest to a wide variety of readers, including Protestants, Jews, and non-believers. As George himself has observed, even groups traditionally suspicious of natural law theorizing, such as American Evangelicals, are now "among the most eager and enthusiastic to learn about the philosophical resources available to defend Christian faith and morals." There is no better book with which to begin or continue that study than George's The Clash of Orthodoxies.

This book is a brilliantly argued collection of essays in support of the orthodox Catholic or Thomist tradition. The Thomist tradition does not view faith and reason as being opposed, nor concede that faith is outside of reason, it views faith and reason as interlinked and interdependent, dealing with whole human beings as rational animals linked inextricably to each other.

At the start, George makes the important point that his tradition is not founded essentially on revelation, mystical insight, or absolute authority, any more than any other tradition, and that such accusations are often levelled unfairly at Christian moral theorists. His view is very similar to other erudite Thomists like Alasdair Macintyre ("Whose Justice? Which Rationality?") who point out that the Enlightenment ideal of pure reason triumphing over human life was somewhat misguided. In this regard, he also shares much with classical liberal theorists like Rawls and J. R. Saul, who emphasize the complex and multifaceted nature of human reason, very different from Voltaire's version.

Part of the great intellectual value of this book is that it implicitly makes a wonderful case for Macintyre's theory that human reasoning builds upon particular traditions, and the second generation cognitive science insight that people do not disagree simply because one reasons better, or from different assumptions. This is the practical result of the fact that human reason is not strictly propositional logic. Rather we reason from different ways of interpreting the meaning of events, through different systems of metaphors, different frames, different narratives, and different but overlapping ways of defining our core concepts. The meaning of a clump of cells becomes very different when seen as something on the inevitable path to becoming a person. It is this kind of penetrating clarity that George excels in, reflecting the orthodox religious viewpoint while (generally) not relying on religious dogma to make his arguments.

The main weakness here as I see it is that while George addresses the arguments of his opponents, the "orthodoxy" of progressives, and is admirably persuasive and temperate in tone, he does not seem to recognize any legitimacy to the progressive tradition. He points out, I think rightly, that what is at stake is a clash of different orthodoxies rather than simply the triumph of reason over superstition. But then he mischaracterizes his progressive tradition opponents essentially as lovers of death and haters of religion and spiritual values. He awkwardly groups postmodernists, left-liberals, pragmatists, atheists, and religious liberals all together in a very uncomfortable unholy alliance against the Thomist tradition. In so doing, he makes his own viewpoint more clear and coherent in contrast, but misses the enormous difference between the different progressive traditions he lumps together. This often causes him to misattribute vaguely malicious motives or irrationality to progressive theorists.

The Enlightenment tradition of reasoning brought with it some enormously powerful new insights, but it also brought with it some dubious elements. For example, I suspect we may increasingly find that Kant's concept of universal reason that can resolve any difference even in moral or ethical thinking is hopelessly flawed. For a current example, see Mark Johnson's cognitive science critique of universal reason in "Moral Imagination" for a good description of the issues. George argues that the orthodox Catholic tradition is "more rational."

That is, he takes the additional step from first brilliantly legitimating the Catholic tradition of reasoning (in a somwehat more accessible way than Macintyre), to then attacking the rationality of progressive traditions as a whole, as if they are mutually exclusive and one must be entirely rational and the other irrational. This is where he parts company with Macintyre, who instead for the Thomist tradition, but not on the basis of being more rational.

I tend to side more with Macintyre, that the orthodox and progressive traditions are both rational "in general," but that doesn't necessarily make them equal (or even "separate but equal") nor does it prevent us from having rational criteria for favoring one over the other in particular applications.

There may be perfectly good criteria for preferring to think of a person in one way in one situation and in another way in another situation. In every tradition we make distinctions between the different application of principles in different circumstances. George does a particularly good job exposing the particulars of how the modern Catholic tradition applies principles to circumstances, but then uses his own principles when he argues the opposing side.

That is, rather than reasoning from their perspective and then finding common criteria for evaluating the two lines of reasoning.

In conclusion, in "Clash of Orthodoxies," Professor George does an exceptional job of explaining and arguing the orthodox Catholic moral tradition and how its principles apply to various central aspects of modern life and modern culture. His arguments are clear and persuasive and, as promised, do not rely on revealed religion or mystical insight, although they occasionally lean somewhat on Papal decree. He pays respect to classical liberal and humanist ideals, while attacking "secular humanist" versions and their so-called "culture of death." It would be difficult to find an equally lucid and compelling account of progressive moral theory applied in such a contemporary way, and this lack of good competition will perhaps be the greatest strength of this book in the long run. I wish progressive moral theorists would use this book as their model to express their own view on the important issues of family, marriage, chidlraising, education, abortion, biotechnology, and so on, providing a good counterexample to George's strawman-based accusation that progressive theorists are all "secular humanists" who oppose stable human and spiritual values of all kinds. He does not oppose them because of their lack of faith, but because he sees them as irrational. Just as many of them see him. And I think both are wrong.

Good and true Catholics, observant Jews, non-mainstream Protestants, and indeed all people who believe in the concepts of immutable truth and objective morality have a powerful champion in Robert George. Professor George is remarkably erudite and courageous (and always civil) as he stands toe-to-toe with his opponents on abortion and indeed the gamut of issues in which our moral and cultural health and fitness are so manifestly rooted.

There is one problem with "The Clash of Orthodoxies," however. No, it's not ideological (though I'm not in lock step agreement with the good professor); it's stylistic. Professor George's writing is typical of academics: long and convoluted sentences, replete with recondite observations, parenthetical asides and qualifiers, and gratuitous adverbs, adjectives, and "big" words unknown to 98% of even the literate public. I suggest that the professor take a gander at Father Rutler's "A Crisis of Saints." He addresses the same issues as Professor George, but in language that is both elegant and accessible.

Still, I heartily recommend "The Clash of Orthodoxies," and hope that it will have a wide and profound influence.

To describe this complex book, the work "uneven" comes to mind. At times, such as when he is discussing public versus private morality, Mr. George employs an essay style and writes in everyday language. At other times, as in his exploration of the role of natural law in our judicial system, his writing becomes highly technical, and quite hard to follow for one not versed in philosophy and law. Surprisingly, I found the opinions in his straightforward essays far more enlightening than the conclusions he painstakingly arrives at in the more labored, academic sections of the book. For example, after an extremely detailed discourse on natural law and judicial activism, he concludes by saying,

"...It was the majority justices' undefended moral presuppositions about contraception, and not anything they could actually find in the Constitution's protections of bedrooms and other private places, that accounts for their sweeping decision."

As much as I agree with the conclusion, I don't think you need a law degree to figure that one out! On the other hand, Mr. George presents some wonderful insights on a host of moral issues, especially when he turns to bioethics-an area in which he claims no expertise whatsoever.

Among the many great ideas he develops, I found these particularly helpful:

1. His demonstration that so-called "private" morals have public consequences: A convincing rebuttal to those who insist on "doing their own thing."
2. His exploration of the Judeo-Christian concept of the unity of mind, body and spirit and the dualistic view of man that characterizes the secular attitude. It reveals much about the trains of thought that lead to irreconcilable differences on issues such as abortion and pornography.
3. His account of the history of American bishops since Vatican II. He explains how the Church squandered so much of its influence on moral issues. He shows how the bishops, by meddling in politics with specific policy recommendations, not only obscured Church moral teachings, they provided enemies of the Church with a pretext for ignoring those moral teachings: In effect, the Bishops caused most Americans to perceive the Church as just another interest group.

Despite the depressing tone-the wide gulf that separates secular and religious thinking, the enormous stakes involved in this clash of orthodoxies-George ends on a positive note. He calls on Catholics to unite with Evangelical Protestants (and others) to form a political bloc for life. Perhaps this will lead to an even broader unity among people who value life in absolute terms.

_The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis_, published in 2001 by ISI books, by Princeton professor of jurisprudence Robert P. George, is a detailed account of the clash of worldviews between those who adhere to the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and those who adopt a secular morality (whether they be inside of traditional religious institutions or outside of them). Robert P. George (1955 - ) is a professor at Princeton who is well-known for his championing of socially conservative and pro-family views as well as being a proponent of the "New Natural Law Theory" who studied under John Finnis (an Australian natural law theorist). George is well known for his staunch pro-life views and is a conservative Catholic. This book examines the culture clash that has plagued the United States for decades now in the conflict between traditional Christian and secular moralities. George bases his title on the title of another work by Samuel P. Huntington in the journal _Foreign Affairs_ called "The Clash of Civilizations". George argues that the "real clash" is not that between civilizations (Western and other) but rather the clash that has already come within Western civilization. This book examines various moral questions from the perspective of Thomistic philosophy and natural law theory arguing for a conservative and traditional understanding. George takes on reigning secular liberal ideologies and comments on moral issues that concern the nation as well as on the decisions of the Supreme Court, the interpretation of the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court, and how such decisions have impacted the United States.

This book begins with a "Foreword: Faith, Reason, and Truth" by John J. DiIulio, Jr. which expounds upon the central themes of George's book. DiIulio begins with an amusing anecdote about a student who maintained that there was no such thing as justice only to receive a failing mark from a professor who noted that if there was no such thing as justice then the student had nothing to complain about. DiIulio maintains that "trifling with long-established legal, moral, and religious truths can be self-defeating and dangerous." DiIulio explains how a secular orthodoxy has arisen since the Enlightenment contrary to the traditional Judeo-Christian orthodoxy and explains the opposition of the Roman Catholic church, Pope John Paul II, and professor George to this secular orthodoxy. Following this appears a "Preface" which lays out the clash of orthodoxies and defines the culture war (particularly as this concerns "life-issues") between Christians (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) and secularists. The book then examines the "Clash of orthodoxies in . . ." through three sections "The Public Square", "The Courts", and "The Church". To begin with "The Public Square", the first chapter focuses on "The Clash of Orthodoxies (Including an Exchange with Josh Dever)". This chapter defines and portrays the clash of orthodoxies between traditional Christian belief and secular ideology over such issues as the appeal to reason (showing that in fact revelation need not be relied upon in defeating the arguments of secularists) concerning such issues as life issues (the right to life, the so-called right to die, etc.) and sexual issues (homosexual marriage, the role of the family, and traditional morality, etc.). Following this appears an exchange with Josh Dever, an atheist and liberal philosopher. The second chapter is entitled "Liberal Political Theory and the Culture of Death" and discusses the culture of death through such topics as "Moral Pluralism", "Public Reason and Liberal Legitimacy", "The Challenge of Natural Law Theory", a "Conclusion", and an "Appendix: Abortion and Public Reason" which takes on the philosopher John Rawls by focusing on a footnote in his work which maintained that abortion was a right in a liberal society. The third chapter is entitled "God's Reasons" and argues that appeals to religious authority have a justified place. This chapter focuses on the philosophy of John Rawls and argues against him. The fourth chapter is entitled ""Same-Sex Marriage" and "Moral Neutrality"" and focuses on the issue of "same-sex marriage" by presenting the traditional argument for marriage. The fifth chapter is entitled "The Concept of Public Morality" and argues that public morality is an issue like public health and considers some of the arguments of John Finnis in this respect. The sixth chapter is entitled "Making Children Moral: Pornography, Parents, and the Public Interest", and presents issues concerning constitutionality and pornography as they particularly concern children. The second section of this book is entitled "The Courts" and examines the role of the courts in furthering the agenda of the secular orthodoxy. The seventh chapter is entitled "The Tyrant State" showing how in allowing for the culture of death in terms of abortion and euthanasia the state has become tyrannical, arguing in line with the writings and thought of Pope John Paul II. The eighth chapter is entitled "Justice, Legitimacy, and Allegiance: "The End of Democracy" Symposium Revisited" which addresses the issue of the legitimacy of the government in light of the fact that the courts have usurped authority in allowing for the culture of death. In particular, this issue was addressed in the journal _First Things_, November, 1996. This chapter effectively shows that the Fourteenth Ammendment which states that states are not to deny any persons within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws may effectively prohibit abortion. Further, this chapter relates the issue of abortion to that of slavery showing how both remain profound injustices that must be addressed. The ninth chapter is entitled "Natural Law and Civil Rights: From Jefferson's "Letter to Henry Lee" to Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail"" which addresses the issue of natural law theory against its detractors and shows how individuals from Jefferson to Lincoln and Martin Luther King appealed to it. The tenth chapter is entitled "Natural Law, the Constitution, and the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review (Including an exchange with James Fleming)". This chapter addresses the issue of natural law theory as it is found in Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. and concerns the Griswold decision relating to a ban on contraceptives and an exchange with James Fleming who argues against George for the liberal position. The eleventh chapter is entitled "What is Law? A Century of Arguments" and considers the case for natural law showing how the Humean position has come to be adopted by secularists against the position of the Thomists. The third section of this book is entitled "The Church" and shows the role of the church in opposing the secular orthodoxy but also shows the problems the church has encountered and various attempts to infiltrate the church by secularists. The twelfth chapter is entitled "Religious Values and Politics" making an argument for an "old-fashioned liberalism" (contrasting this to a form of conservativism) against the modern liberalism of the secular orthodoxy. This chapter considers this issue through such topics as "The Old-Fashioned Liberalism of John Paul II and the Contemporary Catholic Church", "Catholic Faith and Contemporary Liberalism" (noting efforts by certain notable Catholics to attempt to square Catholic faith with the "personal liberationism" of contemporary liberalism, including mentioning the fact that individuals such as Senator Edward Kennedy were originally opposed to abortion), and a "Conclusion". The thirteenth chapter is entitled "Nature, Morality, and Homosexuality" and provides an argument with John Sullivan a notable "gay, conservative Catholic" over the nature of homosexuality and distinguishes the positions of prohibitionism, conservativism, liberalism, and gay liberationism regarding homosexuality. The fourteenth chapter is entitled "Bioethics and Public Policy: Catholic Participation in the American Debate", showing how while Catholics have remained firmly opposed to such things as abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research that the church's efforts have largely failed. The author considers such things as poor tactics by the USCC in addressing Roe v. Wade, the influence of the bishops, and the abuse of the "seamless garment" argument by liberals who want to make abortion legitimate. This chapter also notes the role of prominent individuals in supporting not only abortion but infanticide of already born infants including such individuals as the Princeton professor Peter Singer. The fifteenth chapter is entitled "On _Fides et Ratio_" noting the importance of the papal encyclical _Fides et Ratio_ of Pope John Paul II, noting the importance of both faith and reason as guides (and arguing against fideism), and maintaining that the Truth shall can be known in knowing God. The book ends with an "Afterword: We Should Not Kill Human Embryos For Any Reason" which argues that life begins at conception and that the embryo is fully human and should not be killed. George considers the newly emerging case of harvesting embryos for stem cell research and the problematic proposals of Senator William Frist.

This book offers a detailed account of the central issues behind the "clash of orthodoxies" in the "culture war". George argues persuasively for the traditional conservative and Christian morality against the detractors of secularist orthodoxy. It remains a powerful case for traditional Christian morality and the natural law theory against the reigning would-be secular orthodoxy.

I particularly appreciated Professor George's presentation of societal concern for the moral environment: "people who suppose that prostitution, adultery, fornication, & the like are morally innocent are profoundly mistaken....Laws against intrinsic evils such as prostitution, pornography, drug abuse, & the like, as well as those regulating gambling & alcohol, are justified, in part, by a concern to protect the public environment" (pp. 101 - 108)

Pornography is far from victimless: "images such as those offered to readers of Swank tend to corrupt and deprave by doing precisely what they are designed to do, namely arousing sexual desire that is utterly unintegrated with the procreative and unitive goods that give the sexual congress of men and women, as husbands & wives, its value, meaning, & significance....pornography is degrading & dehumanizing for everyone, but I have no doubt that women and girls get the worst of it....Women...are more likely to be abandoned and left unsupported by their sexual partners. They are overwhelmingly more likely to be 'traded in' for younger and sleeker models, even by 'respectable' husbands. It would be very surprising if they were not more likely to suffer domination, exploitation, and abuse....Anyone who makes the stuff available...does an injustice....everybody has a stake in the moral ecology of the community that pornography degrades" (pp. 115 - 121).

Over the last few decades, there has been an increasing "clash of worldviews" as George puts it, between those who still find reason in faith, and those who, without faith, seem to have lost their reason.

An ever growing number of Americans call themselves secularists, and--no surprise--they question the Christian belief "that human life is intrinsically, and not merely instrumentally, good and therefore morally inviolable" (p 4). With the result that over 40 million babies have died by abortion.

In fact, we seem adrift in a world without fundamental moral principles. And that brings into question not only moral questions, but the very foundation of our government. For "If reason is purely instrumental and can't tell us what to want but only how to get what we want, how can we say that people have a fundamental right to freedom of speech? Freedom of the press...Where do those fundamental rights come from? What is their basis? Why respect someone else's rights?" (p 15). Famous secularist Singer, for example, argues that apes should have the same rights as humans. And that parents should be given a time period to decide whether or not to let their child live.

One issue before us today is the validity of one's moral conscience. Are medical students whose religion tells them that abortion is evil allowed to opt out of learning how to perform an abortion? Democrats have proposed new laws that would make it illegal for anyone to use their religious belief in this way. So that means no Catholic an become a physician. Or can a Christian doctor refuse to give a patient drugs for suicide? Are Christians going to be forced into the status of second class citizens, an idea which would have seemed absurd just fifty years ago. It's not so absurd now.

George points out that a huge number of issues facing us can only be resolved by taking into account the long intellectual history of Christianity and morality.

How, for example, are secularists going to fix our 40% illegitimacy rate? Or the stunning collapse of marriage throughout the west. And those who insist they don't care about these issues, and insist they are personal moral choices, are only avoiding the profound damage that is done to children as a result of them.

George is right. Without religious principles to guide us the wreck of our civilization seems likely. I hope this beautifully reasoned book will be widely read.