otium cum dignitate

Reunification

Today, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church, marking one of the most historic events in church history.  As an Orthodox Christian myself, this news is not only remarkable, it is also personal.  I know i've mentioned my religion a few times on this blog before, but today's reunification deserves a more thorough discussion.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) officially severed ties with the Moscow Patriarchate in 1927 when Patriarch Sergiy declared his loyalty to the Communist regime.  Since then, ROCOR (based in NYC) has grown to a total of 480,000 members today.  In comparison, the Moscow Patriarchate is thought to have upwards of 40-50 million followers. 

In 2003, President Putin initiated the reunification process when he came to New York City to discuss the future of the Church with ROCOR leaders.  I was actually able to hear about the meeting in detail from a close family friend who now serves as the Bishop of Eastern America.  Along the same lines, my uncle (a monk and professor at Holy Trinity Monastery) and priests from my Church in Atlanta and DC were invited to Moscow for the reunification ceremony.  I'm looking forward to asking them about it.

I think it's great that Putin has been such an ardent supporter of the Orthodox Church over his term as President.  But I can't completely quell my suspicions both of Putin and the reunification in general.  I think for Putin, this is just entirely political.  The Orthodox Church is extremely powerful in Russia, and most Russians regard the Church with great respect, whether they are devotedly religious or not.

As for the reunification, many parishioners in ROCOR believe that Moscow will eventually usurp control of property as well as the appointment process of priests and other clergy.   This is a serious concern, but one that seems unrealistic anytime in the near future.  A bigger concern  for me is that the Orthodox Church here will become more Russian and less American, thereby rendering the Church less inclusive, and more cryptic to Christians here in the US.  I prefer to think of religion in universal terms rather than a hodge-podge of cultural cliques. 

I want a true Orthodox Church in America, a Church that preserves the basic tenets of the faith while also becoming more accessible to American culture.   I fear that the reunification greatly diminishes the possibility of an authentic Orthodox Church in America that isn't inherently tied to Russian tradition and culture.  This isn't just an idle concern of mine either.  The Bishop of Eastern America I mentioned earlier boycotted the reunification ceremony, mainly because of his suspicions of Russia's politics, as well as its religious hierarchy.

I think the reunification is good for Orthodoxy as a whole, but probably bad for those of us interested in an Orthodox faith that could seriously expand into North America. 

More on Guns

It may be a long time before the demise of Roe v. Wade, but conservatives could score a significant victoy on gun rights as early as next fall.  On Tuesday, a federal appeals court here in Washington upheld an earlier ruling by a lower court that invalidated DC's complete ban on guns in the city.  The case should find its way to the Supreme Court before long, and an opinion by the high court could be published as early as next fall (just in time for the elections).  It would be the first Supreme Court opinion on the 2nd Amendment since 1939.

The sudden vulnerability of gun control laws has been influenced by new (or perhaps old, depending how you look at it) interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by a few prominent law scholars.  As the NYT reported on Sunday, these new legal interpretations are considered especially significant because they are coming from scholars and professors who are known to usually espouse a more liberal bent on the law. 

An important point to understand here is that, even if the 2nd Amendment creates a concrete right to "keep and bear arms," the government could restrict that right if it had a compelling reason to do so.  Freedom of speech has historically been restricted in situations where an unrestricted right would create a "clear and present danger" to the public, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

It seems that the government could make out a fairly solid case for why gun rights can and should be restricted.  For instance, if the strict gun control laws in DC can be linked to less violent crime, then laws that impose on the right to own a gun could be constitutionally valid.  Public safety is a legitimate public interest, and, in light of the VT tragedy, we all know that guns often pose significant dangers to the public. 

More on this debate to come...

Disenfranchised

I live in the capitol city of the world's so-called beacon of democracy.  As a Washington, DC resident, I have foregone my right to vote for members of Congress (unless I continue to say that this is my temporary residence).  This is one of the world's great paradoxes, and one that stubbornly seems to persist with little real concern outside of the DC area. 

Things could be changing, though.  Last month, a bill passed the House which would give DC a seat in the House (and would give Utah a seat to counter-balance the assuredly Democrat-filled DC seat).  The Senate should be considering the bill soon.

Haters of DC voting rights challenge that the Constitution technically only creates a seat in Congress for States, and because Washington, DC is not a state, it's residents are therefore denied Congressional representation.  However, these opponents of DC voting rights are also typically fond of the Republican party, and they know that a DC seat in the House basically guarantees an extra Democratic voice in the House forever.  That's where the idea of packaging the DC seat with an extra Utah seat (predictably Republican) comes in.

To me, the legal argument against granting DC a seat in Congress is pretty weak.  The Constitution does not actually prohibit the creation of a seat in Congress for DC, it just fails to prescribe that such a seat is mandatory.  DC may not be a State, but it is certainly higher in status than a territory such as Puerto Rico.  DC residents could not even vote for the President until the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961. 

It's time to finally end this ridiculous reality of  "taxation without representation" in a city that serves as the home of the most powerful democratic government in history. 

Done!!

Last night, I finally finished my last exam of the 2L year.  It's pretty crazy to think that i'm 2/3 of the way through law school. 

All in all, 2L was about 50 times better than 1L.  It was so different, that it almost felt like I have gone to two different schools over the last two years. 

I'll be in DC for the summer.  I have one job already, as an environmental law research assistant, and I'm still working on getting one of a couple of other jobs that I've interviewed for. 

I really want to use my extra time this summer to get back to full-time blogging status. 

Also, my i-pod is gone.  If you find it, let me know...