Twenty Years Later, 9/11 is finally over

 9/11/2021--With the departure from Afghanistan, 9/11 has finally ended. During these twenty years we have lost a great deal. America is divided and diminished. But the immediate crisis of radical Islamic terrorism is diminished as well. Attacks continue, but, as David Brooks has written, that path is not the future. And that is clear to most. 

What is the future for Islam? What is has always been--a growing secularism. Growing unbelief. The example of the Taliban just brings that future closer.

The Universe Is on Our Side is now on sale on the OUP Website

 7/27/2021--Another matter that went unmentioned in the last two weeks on this blog is that my book, The Universe Is on Our Side: Restoring Faith in American Public Life is now on sale in advance on the Oxford University Press website. Go ahead and order your copy now before the rush.

Better Than July 4, 2020

 7/4/2021--Happy Fourth of July to everyone--a lot better than last year.

I want to share with my readers the opening of a section of Chapter 9 from my forthcoming book, The Universe Is on Our Side: Restoring Faith in American Public Life. We were already starting to do better, but July 4 might have been the worst moment of the year.

*************

Back from the brink

Independence Day, 2020, was a dark time in American life. President Trump delivered a divisive and incendiary Independence Day Address, more like a campaign rally, promising to defeat “the radical left, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters…the angry mob” and to “protect and preserve the American way of life, which began in 1492 when Columbus discovered America.” Every racist dog whistle was sounded, every angry instinct provoked, despite the fact that the demonstrations had been mostly peaceful and, anyway, had mostly melted away by July 4. Mobs defacing statues were certainly not a national problem by that time.

But it was not just President Trump that represented an American crisis. The pandemic caseload was spiking despite months of total or partial economic and social shutdown. Deaths had not yet caught up, but it was expected that they would. People were frightened and frustrated. Physical fights were breaking out in grocery and convenience stores over whether to wear a mask. It was also expected that the new surge in cases would interrupt, if not end, the budding economic recovery. At the same time, Russia was suspected of paying a bounty for the deaths of American soldiers. China had just ended Hong Kong’s partial independence, which no international coalition seemed prepared to contest. Two American aircraft carriers were on their way to the South China Sea, signaling a new and dangerous level of confrontation with China.

And it was hot. Really hot. And dry. Over most of the country. Climate change had not taken a break with the pandemic.

It was at this moment that the New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote what might have been the bleakest July 4 message ever: The National Humiliation We Need. The column began with the American failure to rein in the virus. Because of that failure, Americans are depressed and many important economic and social institutions were about to go under.

No matter what the upcoming election result in November—and Brooks thought the American people had already decided not to reelect President Trump—the economic future looked bleak, political division appeared to be permanent, racial discrimination remained, despite progress, and social capital was crumbling, including family formation.

**************

So, we have to say, on July 4, 2021, we have actually come through something and we really are in a better place. 

Anti-Racism

10/18/2020--I was just reading the April, 2020 review of The Shadow King in the New York Review. Colin Grant quotes the raw racism of the Italian writer Ferdinando Martini about the 1935 invasion of Ethiopia by Italy. It was shocking to read.

"One race must replace the other; it’s that or nothing…whether we like it or not, we will have to hunt [the native] down and encourage him to disappear, just as had been done with the Redskins, using all the methods civilization—which the native instinctively hates—can provide: gunfire and a daily dose of firewater."

I quote this language because nothing but his own words would communicate that racism in its power.

This is a lesson in anti-racism. 

Two faculty members have left Pittsburgh Universities in recent weeks over the use in class of the word N*. I have no need to write the word out here because I am not trying to show the power the word had. 

But these educators were trying to do that. I now want to repeat that raw racism has to be shown--it cannot be described. It must be quoted.

Who was let off the hook in these incidents? In my view, white students who will never understand what people of color confront every day even now--see the recent incident involving Gisele Fetterman (here). 

Details matter and I not defending the actual conduct of the professors in question. 

But I am defending two principles. First, racism must be permitted to speak its awful message if it is to be understood and confronted. Second, while the classroom should never be hostile to students, it must often make students extremely uncomfortable. 

What Libertarians Get Wrong About Masks

8/27/2020--This week's column in the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

How Can the Sacred be Regained?

8/13/2020--The quotes below are from an op-ed by Thomas Friedman: Beirut’s Blast Is a Warning for America. The subhead was, In this country, as in Lebanon, everything is now politics.

Friedman was quoting Moshe Halbertal:

“For a healthy politics to flourish it needs reference points outside itself — reference points of truth and a conception of the common good,” explained the Hebrew University religious philosopher Moshe Halbertal. “When everything becomes political, that is the end of politics.”

“When you lose the realm of the sacred, that realm of the common good outside of politics, that is when societies collapse,” said Halbertal. That is what happened to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq. And that is what is slowly happening to Israel and America.

One thing about the column is odd—all these countries mentioned are among the most religious in the world. So, one question Friedman is not interested in is how is it the religions of the book—Islam, Judaism and Christianity—lost the sacred?

I believe this happened because of the Death of God, which has absolutely penetrated everywhere. Religion loses its capacity for creativity because it fears the universe instead of having faith in it. Do you hear the Orthodox in any religion say, we shall have peace because with God all things are possible?

If these religions had not lost God, there would be much more serious cross boundary worship, as there was with Martin Buber. The Rebbe would have been capable of this. Pope Francis is. It is rare. God is Dead.

But, in rapidly secularizing America, we have to ask another question—how does secularism recover the sacred?

You don’t get the answer for a year, which is when my new book will be published. It is all about how to recover the sacred. It is called The Universe Is On Our Side: Restoring Faith in American Public Life.

Here is the abstract: There has been a breakdown in American public life that no election can fix. Americans cannot even converse about politics. All the usual explanations for our condition have failed to make things better. Bruce Ledewitz shows that America is living with the consequences of the Death of God, which Friedrich Nietzsche knew would be momentous and irreversible. God was this culture’s story of the meaning of our lives. Even atheists had substitutes for God, like inevitable progress. Now we have no story and do not even think about the nature of reality. That is why we are angry and despairing. America’s future requires that we begin a new story by each of us asking a question posed by theologian Bernard Lonergan: Is the universe on our side? When we commit to live honestly and fully by our answer to that question, even if our immediate answer is no, America will begin to heal. Beyond that, pondering the question of the universe will allow us to see that there is more to the universe than blind forces and dead matter. Guided by the naturalism of Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, and the historical faith of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we can learn to trust that the universe bends toward justice and our welfare. That conclusion will complete our healing and restore faith in American public life. We can live without God, but not without thinking about holiness in the universe.

The Fantasyland of American Public Discourse

7/14/2020--It is now obvious that Dr. Graham Snyder of UPMC was correct that there is now a new, more transmissible, much less dangerous virus strain. (Story here). That is why infections are up, but deaths and serious cases are not.

This is very good news. Why are we not hearing about it?

The media do not want to run this story because they are committed to running President Trump into the ground.

But we don't hear it from the President either, because the virus is still dangerous.

The Democrats are making a mistake in linking themselves to this narrative that we are in a more dangerous position. We are not. Infections have been going up for almost a month. And still, yesterday, there were nationally 465 deaths on Monday. In March there were over 3000 deaths a day.

And it makes no sense to then move the goalposts by talking about serious illness. Dr. Snyder noted that almost no new cases require respirators.

Why cannot we have a reasonable conversation in this country? You still wear a mask but you can now concentrate on protecting the most vulnerable. Things can pretty safely reopen.

Happy Fourth of July

7/4/2020--I cannot write my book fast enough. Now David Brooks writes about "a pervasive loss of national faith." I Have a whole Chapter on that, which will not come out until next summer.

Well, presumably we will still lack faith then.

It is a really simple idea. We lack faith because the object of faith, God, died. Once that occurred, all the selfishness and banality became inevitable.

Easier to tell the story than to do something about it. But all we need is a substitute for God--but not an idol. The universe will do. The universe is on our side and that will be the beginning of a new faith.

So, I have just given my book away, a year early and for free. But at least my readers can have a happy fourth.

Report on The Universe Is On Our Side

6/272020--Readers of this blog have noticed the dearth of material over the past month or so. I have been hard at work writing the first draft of the book that will be published by Oxford University Press next summer--The Universe Is On Our Side: Restoring Faith In American Public Life. I want to report that yesterday I finished Chapter 6--of a likely 10. So, more than halfway there. So, watch for my continuing column updates here, but there will not be too much more material posted probably for another month. In August, I will return with more regular reflections.

Is Every White Person a Racist?

6/21/2020--KeepAll3 responded to my column in the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, below, as follows: "If @BLedewitz feels guilty because he used to be a racist, that’s fine. But please don’t project onto the rest of us. Thank you kindly."

Just to be clear as to what I mean by racist, let me repeat:

"For white racism is simply the feeling that this is my country. The feeling that the normal American is white. And, you can add, in the appropriate circumstances, straight and male.

That is the sort of person most white people expect to see, hire, interact with, listen to and treat as an equal.

This feeling is embedded in most of us. Overcoming it is hard work. Fortunately, among the young, you can tell it is less present."

So, the first thing I have to admit is that it isn't that I "used to be a racist." I say in the column that white racism is like any other addiction--it does not disappear. You fight it every day.

Second, I suppose there are white people my age who do not feel this way. That is why I use the word, "most." But I admit it is hard for me to believe. No one ever taught me to be racist in this sense. I was very, very close to a black woman growing up, Gertrude Falls, whom I loved deeply.

Nevertheless, I thought of white people as the norm and I still would if I did not consciously think about it. So, I don't really understand why other white people would feel differently.

But it they do, great. I am happy to apologize to KeepAll3 right here and now. And I know many young people feel differently.

In fact, that is a large part of my hope for America's future.

James Bennet Resigns

6/8/2020--It is a sad day. The New York Times allowed James Bennet to resign because he greenlighted an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The newspaper failed to support Bennet, the op-ed editor. If you go to the op-ed now, here is the statement by the paper.
********************
Editors’ Note, June 5, 2020:

After publication, this essay met strong criticism from many readers (and many Times colleagues), prompting editors to review the piece and the editing process. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.

The basic arguments advanced by Senator Cotton — however objectionable people may find them — represent a newsworthy part of the current debate. But given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the senator’s influential position and the gravity of the steps he advocates, the essay should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny. Instead, the editing process was rushed and flawed, and senior editors were not sufficiently involved. While Senator Cotton and his staff cooperated fully in our editing process, the Op-Ed should have been subject to further substantial revisions — as is frequently the case with such essays — or rejected.

For example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the role of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa”; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned. Editors should have sought further corroboration of those assertions, or removed them from the piece. The assertion that police officers “bore the brunt” of the violence is an overstatement that should have been challenged. The essay also includes a reference to a “constitutional duty” that was intended as a paraphrase; it should not have been rendered as a quotation.

Beyond those factual questions, the tone of the essay in places is needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate. Editors should have offered suggestions to address those problems. The headline — which was written by The Times, not Senator Cotton — was incendiary and should not have been used.

Finally, we failed to offer appropriate additional context — either in the text or the presentation — that could have helped readers place Senator Cotton’s views within a larger framework of debate.
**********************
The statement is absurd. These details are always present. Op-eds often assert "facts" that are not established. That is why they are on the opinion page. Especially sad is the last part about context. It is an opinion. Readers are not stupid.

The first part shows the newspaper's cowardice. If the argument is newsworthy, it belongs in the paper.

If the point is that Cotton is a racist fascist for wanting to call in the troops against the American people, then the paper should have said so. And added, we don't publish racism. That at least would be an understandable position.

What Does Over-Caution Signify?

5/2/20202—Gov. Wolf announced a totally inadequate partial reopening yesterday. I was so angry about it that I begged off an interview for fear of what I might say. Here’s the story.

Southwestern Pennsylvania should have begun reopening by the metrics announced. Yet we were not included. It’s the attitude that bothers me most. State Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine several times cited Pittsburgh and Allegheny County’s “density” as the reason for not including us. Here is that part of the announcement, from state Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine:

“And so we felt it prudent that looking at all the different data and looking at all the metrics, but taking consideration in our ability to work with counties in terms of contact tracing and testing, and the population density of Allegheny County and Pittsburgh, that it was it was not prudent to go from red to yellow at this time. But we are hoping to do that in the future.”

We are hoping??? What does that mean? This is not some permanent state of affairs where we have to ask the government to go back to work.

The purpose of the shutdown was to prevent overwhelming the health care system. That is accomplished and nowhere in the country is that threat threatening to return. Everyone criticized Georgia, but there may be no increase in cases there. After all, there have not been many reported infections from the demonstrators. And they were on top of each other.

It was never the point of the shutdown to keep people from getting sick and dying. Even after the orders are lifted, no one has to go out. Anyone who wishes can stay home.

Gov. Wolf is not being reasonable. He is allowing an unrealistic public health model to bankrupt the state and individuals, as if someone going broke is not a tragedy. All this nonsense about checks, as if we could replace the economy by printing money.

This is a perfect example of the age of evasion. Tough decisions cannot be made. It’s enough to make you wish Republicans were in charge.

Foreboding About the Stimulus Bill

3/28/2020—Look, even I tweeted that the unanimous passage of the stimulus bill in the Senate was good news. I wrote in my column that the response to the virus shows that we can still work together in an emergency.

But I am still troubled. First, so much red ink. Of course you do that in an emergency. But we passed a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill, when we run a $1 trillion dollar deficit every year.

Worse, no one even said anything about it.

The American people are being led by irresponsible people. We could at least have pledged to cut the yearly deficit when we have recovered from virus. We could at least have mentioned that this situation is why you don’t cut taxes during a boom—you will need the money later when there is an emergency.

National governments are not just like households, but they are not totally different either. If they were, we wouldn’t have taxes at all.

So, the unseriousness of the culture is allowed to grow.

The second part is the partisanship. How much of the unanimity comes because there is a Republican in the White House? Would Mitch McConnell have done this if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016?

You’d like to think so. But, deep down, I don’t believe it. And that means, ironically, that it is a good thing Trump won. Democrats would do this for the good of the country, while the Republican leaders would have put Party first.

After all, McConnell said you don’t allow a sitting President to put a Supreme Court Justice on the Court in his last year before an election, but recently said if there were a vacancy right now, he would fill it.

He is just a disreputable and dishonest person.

I hope I am wrong about this.

The Age of Evasion

3/21/2020--In the book I am working on, I am planning on a chapter entitled The Age of Evasion. The idea is that after the Death of God and the collapse of values, people don't necessarily embrace materialism. We may, instead, embrace deadlock. That is, faced with an unacceptable view of reality--that it is composed of indifferent forces and matter--humans may just stop inquiring and deciding about important matters.

I am reminded of this because of the curious irresponsibility being shown by political leaders during the current virus crisis.

It is a form of irresponsibility not to make the tough decisions. Closing everything down for an uncertain period of time, without any assurance that it will work any better than something more limited, is irresponsible. It will bankrupt and impoverish many people. How many? It depends on how long it goes on.

It would take a gutsy person to say out loud that a couple of thousand deaths of mostly already sick people is not worth causing that amount of suffering. How many people will die within the next two years because of decisions that are being taken now?

Then, having decided that it is worth it to impoverish people, it is proposed to add trillions to the already swollen debt by sending $1200 checks out that don't change the fundamental situation anyway.

Better to allow some level of business activity that would put a lot more than $1200 in people's pockets.

Brett Stephens has it right today in the New York Times.

Still No Community Transmission

3/17/2020--Happy St. Patrick's Day. But of course it is not happy. Governor Wolf ordered a statewide shutdown of non-essential businesses yesterday. But, actually, it will not be enforced. So, it amounts to a suggestion.

The reason for this may be that, while there are now six confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Allegheny County, for example, there is still not one confirmed case of community transmission. (Story here). That would mean that County government would lack authority to order these closures and might mean the Governor lacks authority as well.

But more than a lack of legal authority, it probably means that this measure is a mistake. Government officials and health officials also have been acting as if these closures have no costs of their own--as if it is better to be safe than sorry. I wish instead they had translated the loss of income that they are causing into future deaths of despair. For that is going to happen to some people who will go bankrupt or simply lose all their savings or will live in destitution.

Less stringent orders--reducing restaurant capacity, ordering business to serve fewer people at a time, etc.--would not have been as effective, but they might have been sufficiently effective to retard and spread out community transmission. After all, it is not as if these measures either are going to prevent community transmission. And less stringent measures would be far less costly to people. Some income is better than none.

David Brooks and the 4 Narratives

2/1/2020--David Brooks writes in a tweet: "There are 4 narratives in American Life. Individualistic competition (current meritocracy), cultural warfare (Trump), class warfare (Sanders), collaborative pluralism (Weavers). Pick one."

This refers to his January 30 column about the future of American politics.

The problem is that it is such blather.

Four? Why not more? Why not less? Trump and Sanders could easily be warfare. Why is individualism its own category? Shouldn't it then be individual/social?

Of course Brooks is a columnist, not a philosopher. So, clarity is not the issue. Nor logic.

But, what is pluralism?

And where is communitarianism--the idea that we are all this together serving a common good?

Yes, people are different and groups are different. So?

Was Dr. King practicing collaborative pluralism? Is economic justice pluralistic or universal?

How about solidarity as a category?

Or Truth?

Back to the drawing board, David.

The Shooter and the Death Penalty

10/27/2019—Today is the commemoration of the synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh last year. I have nothing to add to all the beautiful sentiments that have been offered.

But it is hard for me to believe that the government fails to see how destructive it is to be asking for the death penalty in this case.

The death penalty accomplishes nothing, but it is at least understandable when victim family members want it. Then, at least, the sentence provides closure for the victims.

But, in this case, for lots of reasons, the community affected by the shootings have made it very clear that they do not want the death penalty—in fact, are opposed to the government seeking it.

I am not suggesting that their view of the death penalty should control. But their recovery should control. Basically, the members of these congregations just want to move on from the shootings. If it were not for the death penalty, the shooter, whose name I will not use, would probably already have disappeared into the Pennsylvania life-without-parole system. The community would never have to hear about him again.

But, because of the death penalty, everyone will have to not only relive the events, but hear how unfortunate the shooter was in life—or whatever bull the defense will dredge up in the sentencing hearing.

This is destructive for survivors, unless they want it. You would think that the government would understand that and just let it go.

It is not as if these white nationalist shooters are deterred by the death penalty. Whatever deterrent effect the death penalty might have in general, these people are attracted by the idea of death. They would more likely be deterred if nothing special happened to a shooter—there would be no glamour.

This is the curse of politics. If only the government would reconsider.

Taking Court-Packing Off the Table

9/28/2019—It would be nice to be able to take Court-packing off the table. On Friday, I gave a talk at the Elon Law Review Symposium on Court-packing—“Saving Judicial Independence From Court-Packing’s Nihilism.” I argued that Court-packing—the addition of the number of Justices beyond the nine set in 1869—bespoke a kind of jurisprudential nihilism. Marbury v. Madison pronounced America a government of laws and not of men. But the proponents of Court-packing did not believe that. They need bodies and votes.

And the Republicans are just the same. That is why they are busy packing the courts in their own way. Mitch McConnell says he wants to have a permanent impact. But how can you know how judges will rule in the years to come—unless this is all party and partisan and not reason.

Akhil Amar of Yale Law School delivered the keynote address of the symposium. And he also condemned Court-packing. He added an additional objection to partisan Court-packing—that the other side, the Republicans in this case, would regain power and add even more Justices to the Court. It would spin out of control, he warned.

I was impressed that there was a feeling of agreement in the room. The kind of agreement that goes beyond politics.

I also criticized the AALS for having “Pillars of Democracy” as the theme for the January 2020 annual meeting, while refusing to raise the issue of Court-packing. Presidential candidates discuss it, but not law professors? Are they afraid to confront the progressive wing of the Democratic Party?

Now that I have heard a national figure like Amar weigh in, I believe the academy will not much longer be able to avoid the issue.

Constitution Day 2019

Tuesday, September 17, is Constitution Day. It is a day that Americans celebrate the blessing of constitutional government. But, Constitution Day, 2019, comes at a time of unprecedented breakdown in American public life. Not since the Civil War have Americans been as divided and distrustful as we are today. And, unlike the period of the Civil War, there is no one great issue, the resolution of which might allow a return to normal rule. It is a symbol of our time that the book about politics most discussed today, is How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt.

These authors remind us that the threat to democracy almost always comes from within. When we regard preventing political success by our opponents as the most important goal and are willing to sacrifice long-norms of restraint to frustrate that success, democracies die. Unfortunately, that describes the thinking of many Americans today.

Constitutional democracy relies on faith in one’s fellow citizens. The first amendment protection of free speech reflects the belief that truth has the power to persuade. Equal protection and due process reflect the belief that the majority will treat the minority fairly and with respect. Regular elections reflect the belief that we are capable of self-government. Religious liberty reflects the belief that there is an enduring meaning to human life in which we all share. That is the faith that must be renewed today if the Constitution is to endure.

Abraham Lincoln expressed that faith perfectly and simply, in his First Inaugural Address, in 1861, on the verge of civil war. He said, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.” On Constitution Day, 2019, what must be renewed is not our faith in a system, but in each other. Lincoln failed to renew that faith, in his time. In our time, we must not fail, but succeed.

Bends Toward Justice Podcast Debuts This Week

9/12/2019—Recent related projects have limited my postings here. There will be announcements about all that in the coming weeks and months. Meanwhile, the podcast series Bends Toward Justice debuts this week, I hope, on Soundcloud. Here are the program notes:

“Bends Towards Justice” is an original podcast created and hosted by Duquesne University School of Law Professor Bruce Ledewitz. The five episode pilot series is available now at https://soundcloud.com/duquesnelawpodcast. The podcast asks a simple, but fundamental question—do we agree with Dr. King that arc of the moral universe bends toward justice? The participants in this series provide a variety of perspectives on that question. The goal of the podcast is for the listener to understand what is at stake in this question and to come to a decision.

Episode 1: Introduction to themes in Martin Luther King’s concept that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.

Bruce Ledewitz is a professor of law at Duquesne University School of law. He specializes in constitutional law, law and religion and law and the secular. He is the author of American Religious Democracy: Coming to Terms with the End of Secular Politics (Praeger 2007), Hallowed Secularism: Theory, Belief, and Practice (Palgrave Macmillan 2009) and Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism (Indiana University Press 2011). Ledewitz received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and his J.D. from Yale Law School

For Ledewitz, America is a society fallen into nihilism. For many Americans, there are no objective sources of meaning and history has no shape. But nihilism has arisen almost accidentally, out of a failure of the culture to defend truth. This podcast is a first step in challenging our nihilism.

Jesse Francis, who interviews Ledewitz in Episode 1, is a graduate of Duquesne Law School, where he and Ledewitz had an opportunity to explore the implications of nihilism. Francis is an associate in the Dickie McCamey law firm in Pittsburgh.

Episode 2: A conversation with Michael Shermer: Despite the discourse, at present, humanity is kinder and gentler.

Michael Shermer uses Dr. King's image of "the moral arc" to express his view that there is moral progress and that humanity has become better over time--kinder, gentler, more inclusive--and that this does express a truth of the universe. Recent trends that suggest decline are temporary and not an existential crisis in America and the West. The moral universe or right and wrong is real, but is not a metaphysical entity. It is an expression of enlightened humanity. Though not himself religious, Shermer has a great appreciation for what religion has done and does for moral progress. Like all things, religion is not all good or all bad. The issue for Shermer is what beliefs lead to actions that promote the flourishing of sentient beings. Those beliefs need to be encouraged. That overall movement is the moral arc for Shermer.

Episode 3: A conversation with Carter: If the universe doesn’t care about your purpose, does that mean life is meaningless?

In 2017, Joseph Carter wrote an op-ed for the New York Times as a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Georgia entitled, “The Universe Doesn’t Care About Your Purpose.” He wanted to explore the tension between the world of purpose that we see and the scientific reality of mechanistic forces that actually order things.

As a materialist, Carter argues that there are no intrinsic purposes in reality. But, on the other hand, humans need a sense of purpose and the world seems to hold together through the purposes of entities, including humans. Whether our purposes are real or illusory depends on who is asking the question and why. And in the struggle to achieve material fairness for people, it doesn’t really matter whether justice is inherent or not. Either way, justice is what we need to be working toward. The fact that purpose is not inherent does not mean the universe is meaningless.

Episode 4: A conversation with Christian Miller: Is character in decline in America?

Christian Miller’s work has been concerned for years with human moral character and specifically how we can improve our characters and why it is important for us to try to do so. He sees Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as also concerned with character and the way in which the character of Americans can be improved to be more in keeping with the ideals and promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The elements of character Dr. King particularly emphasized were faith, hope, compassion and courage.

The question for Christian Miller is whether and how these religiously infused characteristics can be transmuted in such a way that they are available to secular society. Without God, it is not necessarily the case that justice will triumph. We even see some evidence that character is in decline in America. But even if there is a God, there is a danger from a misunderstanding of Dr. King’s teaching—that we human beings can sit back and wait for the triumph of justice rather than actively pursuing it. Another problem is the moral relativism in the culture, which Miller rejects. Justice and character must be worked at and that will be difficult if we believe that all morality is equal.

Episode 5: A conversation with Tracey McCants Lewis: Will the moral universe bend toward justice?

Tracey McCants Lewis has made numerous contributions to Pittsburgh and the region. She has been a tenured professor of law at Duquesne University School of Law, she is Deputy General Counsel to the Pittsburgh Penguins and serves on the Board of Directors of the August Wilson African-American Cultural Center. McCants Lewis is a leader in the movement for social justice, in recognition of which the Urban League awarded her the Ron Brown Community Leadership Award in 2017. Part of that leadership is her current work at Duquesne Law School’s Civil Rights Clinic where, among other things, students provide advice and represent individuals pursuing expungements and pardons.

For Tracey McCants Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is not just a hero out of history, but a constant and contemporary source of inspiration. When Dr. King taught about the arc of the moral universe, it gave people at that time a sense of optimism and hope. Many of the things Dr. King looked for have come true, though much remains to be done. Some of those good things have even happened in hockey. In his plays, August Wilson exemplifies the seeking of justice that Dr. King was pointing to.