He has been called “the most influential Christian thinker” in modern times- his work in jurisprudence and politics has led him to receive numerous accolades from many religious and secular organizations alike. However, the credibility of Robert P. George has been contested by many concerned by the influence of religion on his writings and teachings. Despite this, he has continued to make his mark on legal thought and conservative politics, and regularly defends free speech and stresses the importance of hearing others opinions for intellectual development. As a public intellectual, George has influenced legal and political structures with ideas based on religious virtues, but defends them with logical backing. He contends that any viewpoint deserves to be heard- even if it goes against one’s moral beliefs- as long as a person is able to defend that point with reasoning. Many would argue that religion does not constitute a form of reasoning- however there should always be a space in the intellectual sphere for religion as it occupies a large part of public consciousness. Denying religion would be ignoring much of what makes us human, and I think Robert P. George’s works assert religion as valid reasoning for intellectual ideas.
George was born in 1955 in Morganstown, West Virginia. He graduated from Swarthmore College, then received his law degree and Master of Theological Studies from Harvard, and finally his doctorate in philosophy from Oxford; there he studied under prominent legal intellectuals such as Joseph Raz and John Finnis, and also served as a lecturer. He then joined Princeton University as an instructor, and still serves as director of their James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions which he founded in 2000. George has also written books and holds undergraduate seminars with left-wing public intellectual Cornel West. These seminars focus on western intellectual history and usually include readings of classic western works ranging from Ancient Greece to the contemporary United States.
Outside of academic spaces, George is very active in the political sphere. He has founded organizations such as the American Principles Project and the Renewal form, both of which serve to promote conservative and Catholic principles. He drafted the Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience, which was signed by many Evangelical Christian leaders promising civil disobedience if their free exercise of religion was violated. These violations included forcing health care workers to assist in abortions and the erosion of “marriage culture”. He also helped in the creation and popularization of the “theoconservative” movement- which advocates that the United States was founded on Christianity, and believes it’s current policies should reflect that. George received the Presidential Citizens Medal from George W. Bush in 2008 for his study of American constitutional law and western political theory; his work on the United States Commission on Civil Rights and judicial fellow of the Supreme Court also contributed to this award.
George’s ideas reflect his strong Roman Catholic faith and influence. In terms of his beliefs about the legal system, he is a strong advocate for natural law- circa Thomas Aquinas. Despite positivists in the past century influencing much of the current understanding of the legal system, George has led a new wave of natural law theorists to return and provide a new (or old) perspective on the legal system based on the Catholic system of beliefs. I am of the belief- along with many other legal scholars- that natural law constitutes a myth of the legal system that only serves to justify or refute the decisions of lawmakers through a religious lens, but George has an interesting spin on this concept. Although past natural law theorists have touched on the idea that their beliefs constitute basic moral principles, George hones in on the practical reasoning behind natural law, while still linking the concepts back to religion. This provides a much more persuasive argument I believe than basing the concept purely on what is spelled out in the Bible. While I would still argue in any legal system there will be faults in practical logic by lawmakers, George describes a constant search for the practical logic in human nature and his goal is to find what laws would best serve this. He quotes Thomas Aquinas in describing his views on what constitutes natural law- “what is worth doing and what ought to be done.”.
What does Robert P. George believe is detestable through his understanding of natural law? Based on his political work and books, his biggest gripes with the current legal system are laws allowing for abortions and against the sancity of marriage; these strong stances generate the largest controversy about his place as an intellectual. These stances are necessarily based in his Catholic beliefs- but that does not mean he doesn’t defend them through other means. For example, he describes abortion as a morally degrading to our society, encouraging infidelity and a desensitization towards ending human life. While I can partially agree to this sentiment, in practice I believe this is an idealistic perspective that does not represent the complicated nature and circumstances in the decision to have an abortion. This reasoning seems to be a way to justify theological ideas about the sanctity of human life into contemporary society. There are many examples of religious justification within George’s reasoning, but these ideas appeal greatly to Christian conservatives and form the basis of much of their current political belief systems.
George’s greatest intellectual contributions rest in his legal and moral philosophy. He has managed to provide a logical basis for traditional Catholic ideals, which has been the major influence on contemporary conservative thought. New York Times writer David Kirkpatrick describes his influence in a 2009 article;
“He has parlayed a 13th-century Catholic philosophy into real political influence. Glenn Beck, the Fox News talker and a big George fan, likes to introduce him as “one of the biggest brains in America,” or, on one broadcast, “Superman of the Earth.” Karl Rove told me he considers George a rising star on the right and a leading voice in persuading President George W. Bush to restrict embryonic stem-cell research. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told me he numbers George among the most-talked-about thinkers in conservative legal circles. And Newt Gingrich called him “an important and growing influence” on the conservative movement, especially on matters like abortion and marriage.”
George’s practical defense of Christian values has allowed for a new generation of natural law theorists to take root- even outside of the church. His doctrine is described in the “Manhattan Declaration”, which connects Catholic teaching and modern reason through connecting what is good for man with what is the will of God. George does not act as if blindly following a Catholic rulebook- he tries to justify these rules describing how they better society for everyone. Therefore, conservative Christians latch on to his ideas, and their influence has been felt throughout the political sphere.
Despite his effort (or lack thereof), it is difficult to separate George’s intellectual understanding from his Christian beliefs- which many see as a detriment. However, I would consider- what if he is right? Despite all we know about the universe, it is still impossible to fundamentally disprove the existence of God. Why, then, do people assume these views are anti-intellectual and democratic? This is discussed in Stephen Mack’s “The Cleric as a Public Intellectual”, in which he quotes Peter Beinart,
“What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them—as much as possible—in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.”
The idea of separating religion from democratic debate is not a new one, and it is all contingent on a belief that there is a baseline of secular thought that every person can default to. However, I don’t believe this “common language” exists, not in the way it is described. This is most evident for a religious believer- their entire perspective is shaped by their fundamental belief of the way the world works. It is not impossible for a religious person to understand the perspective of someone non religious, the issue is it disregards the main backing of their ideas- and many see this as fair ground for all to stand on in an argument. But consider the religious person is actually right? What if the keys to life really are present within contemporary Catholicism or Islam or any number of religions? That would preclude that whatever is taught in these religions based on scripture and tradition would be what is best for the world- so why should religious people have to secularize their speech? I’m not here to debate whether or not George's Catholic ideas are the right ones, but my point is that putting a muzzle on religion permits the wrong argument. No one person, I believe, has the depth of knowledge to know anything disproving the existence of a god figure, and it is unproductive to approach them like we do. If one were to debate the theology behind religious ideas, that would be a way to argue with relevant material. Each person has inherent bias, and religion may be the most obvious bias in a sense, but it is impossible to remove bias from all forms of argumentation- that is why we have argumentation. Some may find certain arguments fundamentally against their belief system or not understand the reasoning behind what is being articulated- but this provides for new perspectives and discoveries which better the democratic system as a whole. Challenging bias is the most important aspect I believe of discourse, and I think Robert P. George put it best in a famous clip from his guest lecture series;
“I think it’s important to listen to anybody who’s willing to come into the university context and present reasons and arguments. In other words, do business in the currency of academic discourse, the currency of reason and arguments- even if I deeply oppose, if I abominate the position being articulated.”
Robert P. George is an intellectual, political influencer, and philosopher but I think above all he wants people to know he is a Christian. I don’t believe that viewing his work through this lens discounts it, instead it provides a different perspective on many fundamental legal issues on which he has been greatly influential.
Works Cited
Cna. “Manhattan Declaration Comes at a Time of 'Important Decisions,' Robert George Explains.” Catholic News Agency, Catholic News Agency, 9 Sept. 2021, www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/18037/manhattan-declaration-comes-at-a-time-of-important-decisions-robert-george-explains.
Kirkpatrick, David D. “The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html.
Mack, Stephen. “The Cleric As Public Intellectual.” The New Democratic Review: August 2016 Archives, Aug. 2016, www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2016/08/index.html.
“Robert P. George Awarded The Presidential Citizens Medal.” Robert P. George Awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal | Robinson & McElwee, PLLC, 16 Dec. 2008, www.ramlaw.com/content/robert-p-george-awarded-presidential-citizens-medal.
Comments