LAW AND RELIGION FORUM

LAW AND RELIGION FORUM
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Us
    • People
    • Photo Gallery
    • 10th Anniversary Video
  • Center News
  • Scholarship Roundup
    • Articles
    • Books
    • Conference Annoucements
    • The Tradition Project
    • Webinars
  • Podcasts and Media
    • Podcasts
    • Videos

Day: June 8, 2012

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Mark Movsesian

Liveblogging the Religion and Civil Society Conference: Hertzke, Elshtain, and Hittinger

This morning the conference continued with three presentations. Allen Hertzke (University of Oklahoma) gave a talk on religious advocacy in American national politics. Political advocacy by religious groups began in earnest in the aftermath of Employment Division v. Smith, when groups organized to lobby for RFRA; the networks formed at that time have continued and even expanded internationally. He discussed the findings in a recent study he did for the Pew Forum on religious groups’ lobbying  operations in Washington, DC; this study revealed sophisticated, well-funded (at least $350 million annually) efforts. He ended with some questions about the future of political advocacy by religious groups; in particular, he wondered whether, by focusing on politics, some religious groups were forfeiting their role in transforming civil society.

Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago) then spoke about the false dichotomy between the terms “religious” and “secular.” She maintained that a more fruitful debate would be one between “traditionalist” and “progressive.” This debate would turn on a right conception of human nature – as between traditionalists and progressives, who would offer the more persuasive account of human nature, its good and bad features? Progressivism, she suggested, operates on the basis of a naïve anthropology that dismisses the human capacity for evil; traditionalism, at least a wise version of traditionalism, offers a better account by accepting the good and bad of human nature.

Russell Hittinger (University of Tulsa) concluded the morning session with a paper on the changing conception of the state in Catholic social theory. Since the First Vatican Council in 1870, he maintained, the Catholic Church has had a nebulous, ambiguous understanding of the state (as opposed its conception of “church,” and “family,” which have remained robust). The Church is not quite sure, he said, how to define “politics” within the broader category of “social life.” He discussed the problems that this confusion poses for church-state relations in the 21st Century.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Recent Posts

  • More on Markets and Religion March 23, 2023
  • Around the Web March 20, 2023
  • The Disintegration of Free Speech? March 20, 2023
  • Video of “The Role of Tradition in Constitutional Law” March 17, 2023
  • Video of Last Week’s Panel at Cardozo March 16, 2023

Calendar

June 2012
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« May   Jul »

Subscribe to Podcast

Google PodcastsAndroidby EmailRSS

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,559 other subscribers
Powered by WordPress.com.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: