Columns

 Estate planning and settlements present challenges, risks and can oftentimes result in additional discomfort and disputes.  :  

By Jessica Harger

Estate planning and settlements present challenges, risks and can oftentimes result in additional discomfort and disputes. But it doesn’t have to be that way. With tax insurance, business succession implementation and estate administration after death can be less stressful and help reduce the risk during the emotional and legal journey of transactions. 

Although the “tool” of tax insurance has been around for some time, many are still unaware of it—or at least unfamiliar with how it applies in the estate tax context. But that is starting to change. Tax insurance is gaining traction both in the popular consciousness and as an effective risk mitigation tool with a surprisingly diverse range of potential applications.

For tax attorneys, financial advisors, executive decision-makers, and families and estate representatives trying to make thoughtful decisions with potentially significant financial consequences, an increasingly important priority is understanding tax insurance and its uses, benefits, and best practices.

What follows is a general overview of tax insurance basics, including who might benefit from a tax insurance policy and how and when it can be advantageous to consider tax insurance.

What is it and why now?

The law is notoriously full of gray areas—and tax law is no exception. There are a lot of very smart and capable tax professionals and attorneys who are adept at helping their clients navigate those uncertainties, and tax insurance offers another arrow in the quiver they can use to do just that. Tax insurance can be utilized in a variety of situations where the prospect of a potentially significant tax liability in the future impacts current planning or decision-making. 

This is not a new solution; the first tax insurance policies were written in the 1980s and the first users were predominantly hedge funds. For some time, however, it was a relatively niche tool, remaining somewhat obscure until recently. Tax insurance has become increasingly common in the last 5-7 years, primarily in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). That M&A usage has functionally created a broader market for tax insurance, with newfound popular awareness that has facilitated new applications. Today, education and awareness remain the biggest obstacles to growth, and have only begun to scratch the surface of the many scenarios where this could be helpful.

Who is using tax insurance and how?

While tax insurance can add critical flexibility and financial certainty in many different contexts, there are three primary areas where tax insurance policies are commonly used today.

The first is in M&A transactions, as a tool for corporate or private equity buyers to streamline deal negotiations. Tax insurance can be used to provide more certainty to tax positions and subsequently allow transactions to move forward more quickly and efficiently.

Another area where tax insurance is helpful is in the renewable energy space. As a growing sector with a relatively large number of opportunities to apply for tax credits—and, accordingly, lots of resulting tax uncertainty to investors—tax insurance can be utilized to great effect.

The third, most common, and perhaps fastest growing arena for tax insurance relates to regular tax planning, both in corporate settings and for family tax and estate planning. On the corporate side, it can be used as a risk management tool for companies taking tax positions on their returns as part of their day-to-day business processes to protect liquidity—especially in well-vetted tax scenarios with low risk but high exposure. Family offices and high-net-worth individuals utilize tax insurance in a similar context. When facing the settlement of an estate, there are often significant tax implications, whether specifically with respect to applicable estate/gift taxes or perhaps even corporate taxes related to a business restructuring or repositioning in the wake of a death.

For estate planning, tax insurance is exceptionally well-suited to addressing the tax questions that arise in next generation wealth and estate planning, as well as the often-messy complexity, uncertainty, and tax exposure that exists in the wake of a loved one’s passing. During an emotional and sometimes confusing and disruptive time, the last thing families need is additional questions about how potentially significant tax uncertainties factor into business changes and decisions about when and how to disburse property and assets. Those tax questions can delay settlement on an estate or even lead to conflict that further complicates an already fraught situation. Whether utilized by family offices, individual executors and/or beneficiaries, corporate entities, or the estate itself, tax insurance can mitigate the significant long-tail risk of future unanticipated tax burdens to streamline the estate settlement process.

What can we expect moving forward?

For legal and tax professionals considering tax insurance for their clients, the first step is to consult a trusted resource with experience in tax insurance options and policies.  As a flexible and strategic risk management tool, both institutions and individuals are utilizing tax insurance to reduce exposure to tax authority challenges and provide much needed clarity and security when it comes to tax planning and decision-making with tax implications. In that context, it’s not particularly surprising that tax insurance popularity and prevalence is on the rise. With awareness of this previously underutilized tool steadily increasing, it seems likely that the tax insurance marketplace will continue to expand both in size and diversity of offerings in the months and years ahead.

This article does not address any specific fact pattern and should not be relied on as legal, investment or other advice.  

 Jessica Harger is the Aon Managing Director , M&A and Transaction Solutions.

 While professional ethics for attorneys are required subjects in law schools, ethics for mediators receive much less attention. In most Michigan law schools. :  

Antoinette Raheem

While professional ethics for attorneys are required subjects in law schools, ethics for mediators receive much less attention. In most Michigan law schools, the Michigan Mediator Standards of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as “the Standards”) are addressed in a cursory fashion or not addressed at all--and certainly are not required reading. Although the Standards are addressed in most mediator training courses, the amount of time devoted to the Standards in such courses is necessarily minimal—at most an hour or so out of the entire 40-hour training. Moreover, some mediators bypassed formal mediator training and have had no exposure to the Standards.

In hopes of enlightening the legal community, this article provides an overview of the Standards. First, it introduces the Standards by clarifying the types of mediations to which they apply. This is followed by an explanation of the consequences for a violation of a Standard. Next is a thumbnail sketch of each Standard (not necessarily each and every Standard), sometimes followed by an ethical dilemma which could arise under a given Standard, to illustrate how the Standards apply in everyday mediation practice.

Applicability of mediator Standards

The Standards do not apply to all mediations in Michigan. Rather, per the introductory paragraph of the Standards, they apply only to cases “managed under” the Michigan Court rules. Once a case is filed in a Michigan state court, court-ordered mediation becomes subject to the Michigan Court Rules and the Standards. However, cases filed in a Michigan federal court where federal rules are controlling are not managed under Michigan Court rules so the Standards do not apply. Also, if a case has not yet been filed in any court and the parties agree to mediate before filing, the Standards would not- apply to that pre-filing mediation.

Consequences for violation of a Standard

So, what happens if a mediator violates a Standard? For the most serious violations, a mediator can be removed from a court-approved mediator roster if they violate an “obligation or prohibition” in the Standards. That is, the Standard violated must either require certain action (not merely suggest it) or forbid certain action in order for the mediator to be removed from the court’s roster. The kinds of Standards which can result in such removal include those that provide “A mediator shall…”, or “A mediator shall not…” language. Removal from the court mediator roster is not provided for violation of Standards which merely indicate “A mediator should…”, or “A mediator should not…” take certain action. In fact, the Standards do not provide for any consequences upon violation of a “should” standard, indicating that such standards are meant to guide, rather than dictate, mediator behavior.

Nor are the Standards to be used as a basis for legal action against a mediator who violates one or more of them. The Standards expressly provide that they do not give rise to a cause of action for damages allegedly caused by a violation. Likewise, the Standards provide they cannot be used as the basis of a lawsuit for the equitable relief of “enforcement of a rule”. (See introductory paragraph to the Standards.)

Overview of mediator Standards

There are ten topics addressed in the Standards: I) Self-Determination; II) Impartiality; III) Conflicts of Interest; IV) Mediator Competence; V) Confidentiality; VI) Safety of Mediation; VII) Quality of the Process; VIII) Advertising and Solicitation; IX) Fees and Other Charges; and X) Advancement of Mediation Practice. Below is a summary of each Standard:

I) Self-Determination. This Standard requires (i.e., uses “shall”) that the mediator “conduct mediation based on the principle of party self-determination”. In short, the party, not the mediator, must be allowed to decide the way the mediation is to go generally, how it is to be resolved, and

2) Note that the ABA has a set of Mediator Standards of Conduct, very similar to the Michigan Standards discussed herein, which could apply.

3) While the Standards may not apply in a pre-filing mediation which is silent on the Standards, the Standards could apply in such cases should the participants insert a provision in the Agreement to Mediate stating the Mediation will be conducted subject to the Standards. Standard I also provides that self-determination includes process design, and terminating the process.

Sample Dilemma

In her mediations, mediator Terry has a strong preference between having all the parties in one room throughout the mediation, as opposed to having them in separate rooms, or caucus, throughout. Terry expresses her preference to the parties and their attorneys at the start of the mediation and both sides respond that they strongly prefer caucus throughout. What should Terry do?

While the mediator may express her preference and encourage the parties to use the mediator’s preferred process, Standard I puts the final decision as to what process to follow in the hands of the parties. If Terry cannot convince the parties to use joint sessions, she must use the caucus process desired by the parties or decline to serve as their mediator.

II) Impartiality. This is another mandatory standard which requires the mediator to not only conduct the mediation in an impartial manner, but also avoid the appearance of partiality. A mediator may actually be partial, i.e., feel that one party should prevail over the other, but the requirement is that the mediator conduct the mediation in an impartial manner. In other words, this rule requires that if mediator has a bias, they should not let it affect how they mediate. If they can’t do that, they must withdraw, even if the parties say the mediator doesn’t have to withdraw.

Sample Dilemma 

Mediator Mel begins mediating a divorce confident he is impartial and can conduct the mediation without any bias toward or against either party. However, over the course of the mediation, Mel believes the husband is abusing the wife. While the wife’s attorney is supporting the wife’s ability to make decisions freely in the mediation, Mel has always disliked abusive spouses, as his father was one. Mel now feels less than friendly toward the husband in this mediation. What should Mel do?

Per Standard II, Mel must decide whether, despite his bias, he can conduct the mediation in an impartial manner. If he cannot, he “shall” withdraw.

III) Conflicts of Interest. This Standard states the mediator “should” avoid conflicts of interests in mediation, so there is no mandate to do so. However, the mediator is required to make inquiries that allow them to discover a conflict of interest. “A conflict of interest is a dealing or relationship that could reasonably be viewed as creating an impression of possible bias or as raising a question about the impartiality or self-interest on the part of the mediator.” A mediator shall also disclose a conflict if they know of one. However, if the participants say the mediator can continue after the being made aware of the conflict, the mediator can continue to serve as a mediator in the case. (But is it wise to do so?) This rule also prohibits the mediator from developing another relationship with any mediation participant “without the consent of all parties.” In determining whether to have an outside relationship with a participant, even if the parties approve, the mediator should look at factors such as the nature of the outside relationship, the proximity in time to the mediation, etc.

Sample Dilemma

Mediator Jill frequently mediates employment law disputes for parties represented by the same defense attorney. May she mediate a new dispute with the same defense attorney representing a different client? If she discloses the prior relationship and the parties consent, this Standard permits her to do so.

IV) Mediator Competence. A mediator “should” be qualified to competently conduct the mediation. If they find they are not, they “shall” advise the parties as soon as possible. Standard IV. gives options for the mediator to consider if they find they are not qualified. These include getting assistance, withdrawing, attending educational programs and/or engaging in peer consultation, etc.

Sample Dilemma

Howard began mediating a probate dispute between two cousins where neither party brought their attorney to the mediation. While Howard knew before starting the mediation that the parties were difficult, during the mediation he discovered one party had a post-traumatic stress disorder and the other was bipolar. Howard had never dealt with either disorder in a mediation before. A few hours into the mediation, Howard felt he had lost control and that the mediation was in chaos. What should Howard do?

Howard must first determine if he can competently conduct the mediation. In some situations, a caucus or brief break could put the mediation back on track. If not, Howard can seek help, withdraw or otherwise address the situation. For example, he may want to bring in a co-mediator who is experienced with PTSD and bipolar syndrome.

V) Confidentiality. The mediator “shall” maintain the confidentiality of information they obtained in the mediation process. As soon as possible in the mediation process, the mediator “should” tell the participant of the mediator’s obligation as to confidentiality and put it in writing. The rule does not provide for any sanction for revelation of confidential mediation information but does say the mediator should consider the safety of persons at risk of physical harm if there is a release of information.

VI) Safety of Mediation. A mediator shall make reasonable efforts throughout the mediation to screen for the presence of impediments to safety or to a voluntary resolution of the mediation.

VII) Quality of the Process. The mediator must protect the quality of the mediation process as to a multitude of factors such as the mediator’s availability for this mediation, who participates in it, how well the parties are able to participate, procedural fairness, appropriateness of the mediation, the role of the mediator, etc. The Standard also mandates the mediator shall not act in the role of any other professional while mediating.

Sample Dilemma

Abbey is an attorney serving as a mediator in a divorce case. Neither party can afford an attorney. The parties agree the husband will not pay child support even though the wife has their three children 80% of the time and earns half of what the husband makes. Abbey doubts the court would approve such an agreement but knows she cannot give legal advice as a mediator. What should Abbey do?

Abbey can ask both parties if they have considered whether the court would approve this provision and suggest they ask an attorney before they finalize the agreement. If they decline, Abbey can either put her advice in writing to the parties or withdraw as the mediator.

VIII) Advertising and Solicitation. This Standard requires the mediator to be truthful in advertising, not claim to meet qualifications for an organization unless qualified through a recognized procedure of that organization, and not use the names of persons served in promotional material without their permission. Mediators should not advertise they are “certified” by Michigan courts because Michigan does not certify mediators.

IX) Fees and Other Charges. This Standard requires that early in the mediation process, the mediator provide the parties or their representatives with the mediator’s fees in writing; the fees be consistent with the mediator’s qualifications; the mediator’s fees not be contingent; and the fees not impact the mediator’s ability to impartially conduct the mediation.

X) Advancement of Mediation Practice. This Standard encourages mediators to advance mediation by doing the following: promote diversity in the mediation field; make mediation more accessible; participate in relevant research, promote public education about mediation; engage in mediation training, mentoring, networking and peer consultation.

Conclusion

Mediator ethics are important. All attorneys, mediators and judges should be familiar with the Standards, keep them in the forefront of our minds and apply them in our everyday practice. 

By doing so, we all become invaluable participants in the advancement of mediation in the State of Michigan.

Antoinette (Toni) Raheem has more than 30 years of experience in the practice of law, more than a decade of which she has served exclusively as a mediator, arbitrator or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) neutral. Raheem has conducted hundreds of mediations and arbitrations training programs.  She is a State Court-approved trainer for advanced and basic mediation training and on the court approved mediator list in several Michigan counties.

 When there was a change in leadership in Michigan’s legislature earlier this year, hope rose again in the hearts of citizens who want a more transparent state government. :  

By Wes Smith
President MPA Board of Directors
Publisher View Newspaper Group

When there was a change in leadership in Michigan’s legislature earlier this year, hope rose again in the hearts of citizens who want a more transparent state government.

Maybe, it was thought by those citizens, the time has finally come for Michigan to join almost every other state in expecting their legislature and Governor to be subject to our open records law. Maybe, they thought, adding hope upon hope, new laws would be passed requiring other government officials to respond to records requests in a timely manner without outrageous fees. But, alas, it’s nearly November and there has not been even a small ray of sunshine in our state house or governor’s mansion.

Michigan remains at the bottom of the bottom for government openness among the fifty states. The Center for Public Integrity gave the Great Lakes State an “F” grade in 2015. In 2020 Michigan ranked 47th out of 50 for anti-corruption measures for public officials according to the Coalition for Integrity.

News reports of former House Speaker Johnson convicted of accepting bribes and Inkster Mayor Wimberly indicted on bribery charges, along with numerous other accounts of unethical behavior on the part of elected officials in our state, illustrate the importance of openness and transparency in government. 

In 2022 Michigan voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot initiative to require state elected officials to provide financial disclosure statements. In a recent study, done on behalf of the Michigan Press Association, there was more data showing Michigan voters want more information about what their elected officials are doing. Nearly 9 out of 10 Michigan adults believe that taxpayers should have access to the meeting calendars of state representatives and their correspondence with outside organizations as well as the budgets of these office holders.

Leaders from the Michigan Press Association have recently reached out to legislative leaders and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer requesting action with specific amendments to improve the open government climate in our state.

The Michigan Press Association has drafted – and this newspaper fully supports – the following crucial measures to bolster transparency, accountability, and integrity in Michigan government: 

1. Extending Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the executive and legislative branches.

2. Requiring far more timely response to FOIA requests. Citizens and media outlets routinely endure very long and unnecessary delays in obtaining clearly public information from government agencies.

3. Preventing exorbitant fees for FOIA responses. Michigan transparency is severely restricted by often outrageously high fees public bodies attempt to charge for FOIA responses.

As citizens of Michigan, you can hold your government accountable. We urge you to contact your legislators and tell them to move forward to improve Michigan’s open government laws to allow taxpayers the access they deserve when it comes to the people’s business. It’s high time to get Michigan out of the basement when it comes to ethics in government. We implore you to act now. 

The Michigan Press Association has actively advocated for open government at the local, state and federal level for the better part of 160 years. It is of our mission is to promote transparency for the citizens of Michigan and serve as a watchdog of taxpayer dollars.

 On October 15 Rite-Aid Corporation filed for bankruptcy. :  

J.J. Conway

On October 15 Rite-Aid Corporation filed for bankruptcy. There were several reasons listed as causes for the filing, including declining sales and legal exposure to mass opioid litigation. Rite-Aid filed for protection under Chapter 11 and hopes to restructure its national operations. The pharmacy retailer is another in a string of corporate bankruptcies that saw a significant rise in 2023.

Inflation, a tight labor market, and ongoing supply chain issues have been identified as potential contributing factors for the rise in recent bankruptcy filings. So, the question naturally arises, when a company chooses to file bankruptcy — either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 — what happens to an employee’s benefits?

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidating its assets to pay creditors, and ceases operations whereas in Chapter 11, the company continues operating, while trying to reorganize its finances to stay in business. Each type of bankruptcy has a different impact on its employees, but the ERISA statute does offer some measure of protection for affected employees.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 — or ERISA — governs retirement plans, including pensions, profit-sharing, and 401(k) plans, in addition to welfare plans such as health, disability, and life insurance plans. ERISA also regulates the continuation of health care coverage through the COBRA and HIPAA statutes.

What happens to an employee’s retirement benefits in bankruptcy? If a bankrupt company terminates its pension plan — defined benefit plan or its defined contribution plan — the plan’s participants become 100% vested in their accrued benefits. If the employer terminates a defined benefit plan because it can no longer fund the plan or pay out promised benefits, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insures some (but not all) benefits, and typically pays benefits after termination up to a certain maximum guaranteed amount.

Although defined contribution plans, like 401(k) plans, are not insured by the PBGC, those amounts are protected from the company’s creditors. In a Chapter 11 reorganization, companies may decide to either terminate or continue their retirement plans. If a company chooses to continue them, they have the right to stop providing any future contributions or matching funds.

What about healthcare? For group healthcare plans of a bankrupt company, the plans must notify employees within 60 days of any material reduction in their covered benefits. If a reorganizing employer discontinues most plans, employees may be eligible to continue coverage in its remaining plan.

If employees are covered under the employer’s health plan and subsequently lose their job, have their hours reduced, or get laid off and lose coverage because of the bankruptcy, COBRA provides them with the right to purchase extended health coverage under the employer’s existing plan.

COBRA continuation coverage may not be available if the company discontinues its health plan entirely. Employees and their dependents will have to seek other coverage such as Health Insurance Marketplace or special enrollment in a spouse’s group health plan if available.

Health benefits for retirees or under collective bargaining agreements may be protected under special bankruptcy rules. If there are unpaid health claims and the plan sponsor has declared bankruptcy as well, a plan participant should consider filing an actual proof of claim with the bankruptcy court.

The key for adversely affected employees is to monitor the bankruptcy process and follow the plan rules that govern their retirement and health benefits and know in advance what happens to those benefits if they are terminated. There are a number of documents that outline the rights of participants, including Summary Plan Descriptions and the Summary Annual Report if available. Both documents contain important contact information for following up on pending benefit claims. Employees may also be able to  trace their rights by securing copies of the prior earnings, such as pay stubs and individual benefits statements. These documents should provide the amount of money or value in retirement or pension funds before the bankruptcy. In the event of a bankruptcy or reorganization, this documentation will be critical.

An employer’s bankruptcy can be a difficult process for employees, if only on an emotional level. When a company goes through a formal reorganization or liquidation, the best course of action is to be well-informed about the proceedings and the employee’s plan-based rights, and to move quickly to protect those rights.

—————

John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

 This is the fourth commentary in a series on science, religion, and politics.   :  

Samuel Damren

This is the fourth commentary in a series on science, religion, and politics.

As a prelude, the third commentary described academic, religious, and political views on evolution existing prior to the publication of Charles Darwin’s seminal work, “The Origin of Species” in 1859.

“The Origin of Species” is a model for the presentation of an intricate, lengthy but dramatic synthesis of fact and theory.  

Darwin begins his introduction on a personal note and anticipation: “When on board H. M. S. Beagle, as a naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America and in the geographical relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent.”

“These facts … seemed to throw some light on the origin of species – that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by … philosophers.”

When a student at Cambridge in 1831, Darwin was selected to serve as naturalist on a two-year British naval scientific expedition to South America and then across the Pacific to Australia. Instead, the Voyage of the Beagle lasted for five years and included a 500-mile trek through Brazil.

The foundation of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection rested on the selection of minor variations that over long periods of time favored a species in the struggle for survival in the natural and competitive environment: survival of the fittest.  

Darwin could not travel back in time to view this process as it occurred; but what time travel could not provide, was provided for Darwin to examine through distance and the isolation of “organic beings” in separate and distinct environments.

On his “return home,” Darwin shares with the reader, that “it occurred to me, that something might be made out on the question” of the origin of species from the facts “accumulated” on the expedition. Thus, began 20 years of dedicated research.

After recounting a thumbnail history of prior work as context, Darwin states his thesis in question form in “The Origin of Species,” Chapter IV: “Can it be, then …that variations useful to each being in the great and complex battle of life … [provide] individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others [with] the best chance of surviving and procreating their kind?”  

In following chapters, Darwin first discusses countervailing theories in detail, demonstrating his scholarship, before presenting the empirical evidence and logical arguments supporting his new and novel position that life as it exists today evolved from a few simple forms, and not through Special Creation.

In the final chapter, Darwin thanks readers for their attention in considering his work to that point and then begins his final argument which he identifies as a “recapitulation” of “the leading facts and inferences.”

He ends with a flourish “as a consequence of Natural Selection, entailing …  the Extinction of less-improved forms [through] that war of nature … the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life … that from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

Seasoned advocates will recognize that through this poetic lilt, Darwin was “pulling the tooth” of anticipated theological opposition to his position. He did not have as much to worry about as he might have expected.  

There was fervent opposition from theologians that strictly adhered to Scripture; but there were also many theologians who sought to accommodate his reasoned, exhaustive, and obviously well intended work. In their view, Darwin was not arguing that the Creator had no role in the Creation of life; only that the mechanism by which He worked was different than that set forth in Scripture.

Scientists of the time were not as taken by his argument as Darwin might have hoped.  

They were persuaded by his explanation of Natural Selection as a mechanism to sort advantageous from disadvantageous variations in species. However, his failure to identify a separate mechanism that explained how variations in species occur in the first place and continue thereafter left the overall theory incomplete.  

This fault would be remedied 100 years later through the discovery of the double helix of DNA and the variations attendant to recombination. The technology underlying this scientific discovery did not exist until the 1940s.

Dr. Francis Collins, the longest serving presidentially appointed director at NIH and the “field marshal” of the international Human Genome Project in 2000, marvels at Darwin’s ability to so long ago discern the process of Natural Selection without the benefit of understanding the mechanism of DNA.

He also notes there remain some scientific gaps in the overall theory of Natural Selection.  

Collins, a practicing Christian and the author of “The Language of God,” contends that science should not discount a role for the divine in filling these gaps. He is not dogmatic about this possibility. Collins accepts the fact that future scientific findings alone may supply the answers. However, if that occurs, he notes it will not disturb the foundations of his faith.

From Collins’ perspective, science and religion can both accommodate and complement one another.  

Just as Darwin was “struck with certain facts” upon his return from the Voyage of the Beagle, it is tempting to analogize the process of Natural Selection occurring at the individual level to humankind’s group behavior organized through belief systems.

From this perspective, perhaps “something might be made out on the” different ways religions, religious denominations and sects view the beliefs of others that conflict with their own.

For example, does a particular religion, religious denomination or sect accept that truths held by others who do not share their beliefs are nonetheless entitled to a respect equivalent to the respect they demand for their beliefs?

Alternatively, does a particular faith contend there is only “One True Faith” and that the beliefs of others are not entitled to respect, and should either be banned or eliminated by other means?

Evaluating the prevalence of these differing perspectives might gauge humankind’s political evolution to date.

—————

Samuel Damren is an attorney and author in Ann Arbor.

 This is the third commentary in a series on science, religion, and politics.   :  

Samuel Damren

This is the third commentary in a series on science, religion, and politics.

The second commentary concluded with the stunning impact of Newton’s “System of the World” described in “The Principia” in 1687. Combining his theory of gravity with calculus, Newton explained the unified mechanics of terrestrial and planetary motion. 

Prior to Newton’s work, Western scholars did not question the narrative in Scripture that the earth and heavens along with plants, animals, and humans were created by God 9,000 years ago. They also had no reason to think the forms of life on earth had changed except for minor variations since Special Creation.

Newton’s work challenged the accepted age of the solar system and made clear it must be counted in millions not thousands of years, but he did not discount God’s role in creation. Newton speculated the solar system might have been formed by comets slicing off sections of the sun that coalesced into planets.  

Reasoning it would be impossible for planets created in this fashion to occupy the same plane of orbit and travel in the same direction, Newton saw the “Hand of God” in this process. 

Pierre Laplace, French polymath, later proved Newton’s speculation erroneous.  

Applying Newtonian mechanics to the analysis of nebula in 1796, Laplace demonstrated that as a nebular-cloud collapses under its own gravity into a revolving disk, it spins off parts of its original substance. As the process continues, the disk compacts into a star and the discarded material forms circling planets.

The revised assessment of earth’s age resulting from Newton’s work raised issues in other fields, including biology and evolution.

Theories of evolution were discussed in English and European works well before the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” in 1859. The ever expanding fossil record in the 18th and 19th centuries provided anecdotal evidence that the organic world did not remain static, but the evidence was not conclusive.

Theorists offered a variety of possible explanations. 

Given significant differences between existing animals and those in the fossil record, one scholar suggested that over long periods of time ancestral life forms could “degenerate,” but also claimed they could “revert” back to original form. He did not describe how either process might work.

Another scholar suggested that instead of “degenerating” into new forms, extinct species had been the victim of large-scale catastrophes.

In a book titled “Zoological Philosophy,” Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist, went so far as to speculate in 1809 that “the power of life” caused organisms to change form based on their use or disuse of body parts and that the law of “inheritance” passed on these altered qualities to offspring. 

Critics ridiculed his speculation citing the lack of any evidence that chicks turn into long legged heron based on the hen’s distaste for getting her thighs wet in a stream.

Theologians had their own concerns. If evolutionists believed forms of life changed into different species over time, were they suggesting God got it wrong in His initial Creation of the Species? Or, changed his mind? Were they masquerading as Deists by asserting that God created the world and then abandoned it? 

Political figures also weighed in. The Continent was reeling from the revolutions of the late 1700s and Napoleon’s march across Europe. With his defeat, royalists returned to provide needed stability, but expressed concern talk of evolution, Deism and similar radicalisms was designed to once again violently stir the lower classes against the natural forces of order and security.

The revolts that occurred in 1848, but were successfully put down in European capitals, were proof to them that these reckless theories might be part of a larger political threat and should therefore be suspect.

Pre-Darwinian theories of evolution were not taken seriously. That would change in 1859 when Darwin presented a mechanism to describe changes in species independent of Special Creation.  

“The Principia” questioned God’s role in the creation of the solar system. Less than 200 years later, “The Origin of Species” declared the Almighty had no direct role in the creation of mankind.  

What would be next?

—————

Samuel Damren is an attorney and author in Ann Arbor.