Does Democracy Reduce Religious/Political Terrorism?

Here is a well-written and acute review by Samuel Helfant of Katerina Dalacoura’s (LSE) interesting book, Islamist Terrorism and Democracy in the Middle East (CUP 2011).  As Helfant notes, the book was written before the upheaval in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc., but its themes and thesis are more relevant now than ever.  Here’s a bit from the review.  — MOD

The link between repressive political systems and terrorism seems obvious. It is not difficult to imagine why some people without the means to express their political will peacefully would eventually turn to violence. Add to this the findings of the democratic peace theory, which highlight the fact that no democratic state has ever gone to war with another democratic state, and democracy would appear to be an apt remedy for the political violence, including terrorism, that has plagued the Islamic world in recent decades. Thus, countless studies since September 11 have argued that democracy in the Middle East could “drain the swamps” of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, this idea formed the theoretical foundation for the Bush administration’s adoption of its “freedom agenda” as a central tenet in its war on terrorism.

In practice, however, the link between political systems and political violence has never been as strong as some would suggest. The unfortunate truth is that authoritarian regimes are rather good at preventing terrorism. There were only a few reported incidents of political terrorism in the Soviet Union, and in 2003 the London-based World Terrorism Index classified North Korea as the state “least exposed to international terrorism.” In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that democracy, and especially the process of democratization, can actually encourage terrorism. It should not be surprising that the Middle East is no exception to these trends, and empirical studies on the links between political participation and moderation among Islamists, such as Jillian Schwedler’s important book Faith in Moderation, have come to similar conclusions about the questionable link between political systems and extremism.

Yet books such as Schwedler’s have been limited to studies focusing on one or two groups over a specific period of time. Dalacoura’s work, by contrast, offers an analytical tour of the major Islamist movements in the Middle East. Through a plethora of case studies, Dalacoura covers a wide geographical and political range, and with a social-scientific methodology that separates her work from that of pundits and journalists, she challenges hypotheses instead of simply searching for evidence to reinforce received wisdom. What she finds, across the board, is that the links between political freedom and political violence are unsubstantiated.

Personhood Amendment Fails in Mississippi

An update on the proposed Personhood Amendment on the ballot in Mississippi, about which I posted last month. The measure, which would have amended the state constitution to define life as beginning at  the moment of conception, failed yesterday. The defeat was surprising, given earlier opinion surveys in this socially conservative state, but the Personhood Amendment had divided abortion opponents, including the Catholic Church, which declined to endorse the measure for pragmatic reasons. — MLM

USCCB to Congress: Protect Food Aid & the Environment, Domestically & Internationally

On October 20, the Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire, Bishop of Stockton, California, and the Most Reverend Howard J. Hubbard, Bishop of Albany, New York, penned a letter on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”) expressing concern about budget cuts to conservation, rural development, and international food-aid programs.

Bishop Blaire, the Chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop Hubbard, Chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote to emphasize that domestic and international budget considerations must take into account the “least of these” among us.  See Matthew, 25:40.  The letter focuses on the need, in determining government spending priorities, always to respect the fundamental right of the poor to adequate nutrition and the necessity of promoting responsible environmental stewardship.  The letter urges Congress, despite its legitimate fiscal concerns, not to lose sight of these priorities in its rush to cut spending.

Excerpts from the letter, addressed to the Chair and Ranking member of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, follow the jump. Read more

Announcing the Colloquium in Law: Law and Religion

The Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University School of Law is pleased to announce an exciting new seminar for Spring 2012, Colloquium in Law: Law and Religion.

This course invites leading law and religion scholars to make presentations to a small audience of students and faculty.  The following speakers have confirmed:

January 30: Philip Hamburger (Columbia University School of Law)

February 13: M. Cathleen Kaveny (Notre Dame Law School)

March 5: Joseph Weiler (NYU Law School)

March 19: Michael McConnell (Stanford Law School)

April 2: Justice Antonin Scalia

April 16: Ayelet Shachar (University of Toronto Faculty of Law)

Topics will be announced shortly.

Each session of the Colloquium will run from 4:00 to 6:00 in the third-floor faculty library.  Interested faculty members in the New York area and beyond  are invited to attend and participate.

Please email the Colloquium’s co-organizers, Marc DeGirolami (degirolm@stjohns.edu) or Mark Movsesian (movsesim@stjohns.edu), if you would like to attend.  — MOD

LDS in the USA: Its Theology of Gender and the Problem of Same-Sex Marriage

Joseph Smith (1805–1844)

Seth R. Payne has posted Mormonism and Same-Sex Marriage: Towards a Mormon Theology of Gender.  Payne’s article chronicles the theological tenets that make acceptance of same-sex marriage in the present-day Mormon Church a virtual impossibility—yet he also suggests that there is reason to believe this position, at least in theory, could change.  The piece adds additional context to my post on the recent book, LDS in the USA, which can be viewed here.

Brigham Young (1801–1877)

Most people know that Mormons and the institutionalized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints played an integral role in the passage of Proposition 8, which overturned the ruling of the California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) that prohibiting same-sex marriage was a violation of the California and United States’ constitutions.  See Jesse McKinley & Kirk Johnson, Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage, N.Y. Times, Nov. 15, 2008, at A1.  Donations by Mormons were instrumental in mobilizing the forces that supported Proposition 8’s passage.  In certain respects, Payne articulates exactly why such donations were crucial to Mormon theological integrity.

For more on Payne’s exposition of these tenets of the Mormon Church, please follow the jump.

Read more

Stroumsa on Maimonides

Non-Jews mostly know Maimonides as a medieval philosopher who, much like Aquinas in the Christian tradition and Averroes in the Islamic, attempted to reconcile Aristotelian thought with Abrahamic faith. He was also one of the great scholars of Talmudic law, whose works are still regarded as canonical within Judaism. Sarah Stroumsa (Hebrew University) has written a new book, Maimonides in His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (Princeton University Press 2011), that positions Maimonides within the larger  Mediterranean world of which he was a part. The publisher’s description follows. — MLM

While the great medieval philosopher, theologian, and physician Maimonides is acknowledged as a leading Jewish thinker, his intellectual contacts with his surrounding world are often described as related primarily to Islamic philosophy. Maimonides in His World challenges this Read more

Christmas Wars Kicked Off… and a Thought About “Neutrality”

The embattled governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, has announced that the tree decorated with baubles of various sorts for the upcoming winter season and located on capitol grounds is, in fact, a Christmas tree and not a holiday tree.  Naturally, the move has elicited consternation from some persons (the Freedom From Religion Foundation spokeswoman, for example), who are reported to have complained that the governor’s declaration amounts to a “discourtesy” and a “snub to non-Christians.  Otherwise he wouldn’t do it.”

Apart from the notion that there may well be other reasons to call a pipe a pipe than to injure the feelings of others, this exchange got me thinking about the arguments from religious “neutrality” that are sometimes made to justify the endorsement test in establishment disputes.  The FFRF spokeswoman says that the reason the name of the tree was changed from “Christmas” to “holiday” is “to avoid this connotation that the governor chooses one religion over another.”  That is a standard move in neutrality argumentation: we change the name to avoid even the hint of the suggestion that government is non-neutral when it comes to religion.

Obviously we are not talking about neutrality from the God’s-eye point of view, however.  We can only judge whether a practice is neutral by reference to some base line of social behavior.  Frank Ravitch and Andrew Koppelman (in a forthcoming book), among others, make and turn over these sorts of questions, but consider the following example.  In times of peace, the United States provides non-military aid to the small (and imaginary) country of Blorb.  Blorb now enters into a war with the country of Snorp, and it is very important to the US government that it remain “neutral” between the sides.  What does neutrality demand?  Presumably it would require the US not to begin granting military as well as non-military aid to Blorb (this is part of the reason that I believe neutrality is not an empty concept).  But does it also demand withdrawing non-military aid from Blorb?  Does it require keeping things the same as they were before the conflict?  Does it demand beginning to supply Snorp with non-military aid as well?  Or perhaps with non-military as well as military aid, in order to balance the former aid given to Blorb and withheld from Snorp?

Any one of these answers can be characterized as both neutral and non-neutral — or, as the FFRF rep. put it, as a “discourtesy” or as the public perception of “choosing” this over that.  Calling, as well as not calling, the Christmas tree a Christmas tree is a snub and a discourtesy.  The reason is that the historical base line from which judgments of neutrality operate admit of multiple reasonable interpretations of government action.  Does this mean that neutrality is empty?  I do not think so, as I said above.  If Governor Walker had announced that in addition to the Christmas tree, he was erecting a gigantic golden statue of Jesus right on top of the capitol building, one can quite sensibly speak of that decision as non-neutral.  But though neutrality can do a little bit of work along these lines, its conceptual resources rapidly run out in more difficult cases.  — MOD

Day, “Believing in Belonging”

From Abby Day (Sussex) comes this study in the sociology of religion, with complex implications for legal policy.  The book is Believing in Belonging: Belief and Social Identity in the Modern World (OUP 2011).  Of particular interest is the finding that “nominal” religious affiliation — long dismissed as empty — may be nothing of the kind.  The publisher’s description follows.  — MOD

Believing in Belonging draws on empirical research exploring mainstream religious belief and identity in Euro-American countries. Starting from a qualitative study based in northern England, and then broadening the data to include other parts of Europe and North America, Abby Day explores how people ‘believe in belonging’, choosing religious identifications to complement other social and emotional experiences of ‘belongings’. The concept of ‘performative belief’ helps explain how otherwise non-religious people can bring into being a Christian identity related to social belongings.

What is often dismissed as ‘nominal’ religious affiliation is far from an empty category, but one loaded with cultural ‘stuff’ and meaning. Day introduces an original typology of natal, ethnic and aspirational nominalism that challenges established disciplinary theory in both the European and North American schools of the sociology of religion that assert that most people are ‘unchurched’ or ‘believe without belonging’ while privately maintaining beliefs in God and other ‘spiritual’ phenomena.

This study provides a unique analysis and synthesis of anthropological and sociological understandings of belief and proposes a holistic, organic, multidimensional analytical framework to allow rich cross cultural comparisons. Chapters focus in particular on: the genealogies of ‘belief’ in anthropology and sociology, methods for researching belief without asking religious questions, the acts of claiming cultural identity, youth, gender, the ‘social’ supernatural, fate and agency, morality and a development of anthropocentric and theocentric orientations that provides a richer understanding of belief than conventional religious/secular distinctions.

Pin on the Italian Separation of Church and State

Andrea Pin (University of Padua – Faculty of Law) has posted Public Schools, the Italian Crucifix, and the European Court of Human Rights: The Italian Separation of Church and State. The abstract follows.  – ARH

The recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) with regard to the presence of the Catholic symbol of the crucifix in Italian public schools are just the latest episodes of the ongoing juridical and political struggle for the secularization of the Italian state. This debate involves the interpretation and the enactment of the Italian Constitution as well as the  political and cultural trends that shape the Italian public debate about the public role of religion.

The decisions of the ECHR, which operates in Strasbourg, pushed the debate further: from the interpretation of the Italian Constitution to the respect for international treaties. In the first degree, the Court found Italy’s policy of displaying crucifixes in public schools violated Article 9 of the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“European Convention on Human Rights”) that protects the right to freedom of religion. The popular and political criticisms of the judgment were immediate and forceful throughout Italian public discourse, because a majority in Italian society supports the presence of the crucifix in public schools. Read more

Jacqueline Rose on Church and State in Restoration England

The Restoration of the Stuart Dynasty in 1660 led to the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which, in turn, figured prominently in the iconography of the American Revolution 100 years later. Jacqueline Rose (University of St. Andrews) has published a new book on church-state relations during the Restoration, Godly Kingship in Restoration England (Cambridge University Press 2011) that looks quite interesting. The publisher’s description follows. — MLM

The position of English monarchs as supreme governors of the Church of England profoundly affected early modern politics and religion. This innovative book explores how tensions in church-state relations created by Henry VIII’s Reformation continued to influence relationships between the crown, parliament and common law during the Restoration, a distinct phase in England’s ‘long Reformation’. Debates about the powers of kings and parliaments, the treatment of Dissenters and emerging concepts of toleration were viewed through a Reformation prism where legitimacy depended on godly status. This book discusses how the institutional, legal and ideological framework of supremacy perpetuated the language of godly kingship after 1660 and how supremacy was complicated by the ambivalent Tudor legacy. It was manipulated by not only Anglicans, but also tolerant kings and intolerant parliaments, Catholics, Dissenters and radicals like Thomas Hobbes. Invented to uphold the religious and political establishments, supremacy paradoxically ended up subverting them.