R: The Roman Catholic Church is justified in forbidding the use of contraception

Wednesday, October 16th at 7.30pm

Is American society looking at contraception all wrong? From Sandra Fluke to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the President of the United States, few have failed to comment on an issue that - somewhat surprisingly - became a center of attention in U.S. politics over the past year after Obamacare mandated employer contraception coverage. But what are the bases upon which the cases for and against contraception use are being made? Sure, publicity stunts and slogans are one thing - but perhaps it's time to dissect the presuppositions behind Griswold v. Connecticut and the new wave of public thinking it has ushered in. Do our bodies really belong to us? Is it reasonable or healthy for a church to explicity oppose its use? If we accept contraception use and agree to sever the link between procreation and sex, what necessary logical conclusions does that invite when it comes to the purpose of human function? And finally, IS THERE A MEANING TO LIFE? (This is very well where the topic might go...)

Furthermore, we'll analyze the Roman Catholic Church's contraception policy in light of the AIDS crisis and the abortion crisis - challenging members to address how the Church can maintain its contraception policy in a world that is seemingly headed in a very different direction. An explosive, far-reaching debate awaits. Join us this WEDNESDAY at 7:30 p.m. in the Rosenfeld Hall Common Room on the corner of Grove & Temple Streets by TD as Federalists and non-Federalists alike conceive and rebut thoughts on this most politically and socially volatile of issues.

R: Reinstate the cane

Thursday, October 11th at 7.30pm

Is corporal punishment cruel? Even if it may be, does the state have the right to regulate its use? What should the status of children be, exactly, relative to their parents? Does the United Nations have the right to claim to be the defender of children worldwide, or does ideology plague its very stances (and existence)? These questions only begin to scrape at the surface of the many issues underlying modern takes on corporal punishment. Was it ever really that bad? How much of current beliefs are based on history - and how much are based on artificially-constructed narrative? What is the efficacy of the cane for instilling discipline? How about for causing permanent emotional trauma? Join us this Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room - it promises to be a debate where quite a few get smacked.

R: All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way

Friday, October 5th at 7.30pm

When it comes to creating and maintaining families, are the rules pretty strict or do many roads lead to Rome? What causes some families - and children in particular - to flourish, while others drift into dysfunction and insecurity? Are there characteristics common to most successful families - and certain patterns discernible in failing ones?

This, the opening sentence of Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, has inspired historians and social scientists to critically analyze paths to success versus paths to failure in a variety of societal units. If certain features of good families can be generalized, how should we go about universalizing them? Who or what should assist families in eradicating "maladaptive" behaviors or methods? 

This Friday at 7:30 p.m., the illustrious alumni and guests of honor of the Federalist Party will be gracing us with their presence in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room to enlighten us about how the "Anna Karenina principle" is applied to history, society, and family, to diagnose the ills plaguing modern families, and to discuss what makes the family as a unit successful or unsuccessful. All are welcome.

R: Civilize the savages

Thursday, September 27th at 7.30pm

The attacks on American civilian officials serving in Libya this month prove, if there was any doubt, that we have long been living in an age of total war. Civilian life, respect for diplomatic institutions, and a reverence for the right to free speech do not come close to characterizing modern radical Islam. While the attacks were originally attribtued to pro-Gaddafi forces, there is emerging evidence that al-Qaeda was also invovled. It is clear that the effects of universalizing ideology, for this new age of radicals, greatly trumps any imperative to observe human rights conventions. But is radical Islam really to blame? Is it not a bit ironic that the nations now condemning these actions were themselves wrapped up in two successive world wars, which featured violations of every level of protocol known then to man? Perhaps this is precisely the argument of right-wing secularists like Geert Wilders - that Europe has evolved and the Islamic world has not.

More generally, what are the limitations of religious practice in a liberal state? Should the state be able to compel deference to the polity? Was Marx right that the state is fundamentally at odds with religion? Or is de Tocqueville to be believed when he claimed the two can indeed function harmoniously - as they did in America? Given the healthcare law's contraception mandate, is that still the case? Is the Church supposed to acqueisece, or take up arms? If the second, then can we really blame other religious people for staying true to the doctrine of their faith? Join us in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room this Thursday at 7:30 p.m. as we debate the limits of liberalism, tolerance, and when (if ever) religious devotion crosses the line.

R: Natural rights are a social construct

Thursday, September 20th at 7.30pm

Rights, rights, rights. Everybody has them, and everybody gets theirs violated at some point or another. It seems as though we live in an age of an ever-expanding charter of rights, but fewer insitutions who have the military force or political will to enforce them all - and even fewer individuals within them who have any working knowledge of where their rights originate. It seems as though it is this lack of understanding that leads to bold (and largely unfounded) statements like, "[Jobs/birth control/welfare/child support/insert-your-wish-list-here] is a human right!" This article from our problematic (yet well-intentioned) libertarian friends at Reason.com highlights the deeply problematic rhetorical use of "rights" at the Democratic convention this month.

So how did we get here? When did we lose our understanding of what is and isn't a right? If rights are sourced from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence claims, are there a set number of them? If they origniate from the communities that establish them, why can't anything become a right if enough people agree? What is the difference between positive rights and negative rights? Does the state have an interest in protecting the rights of some - but not all? Is this just? Is this utilitarian? (Hint: Yes.) Join us in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room this Thursday at 7:30 p.m. as we debate the source, extent, and merits of "natural rights."