Pasquale Annicchino (Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies) is doing interesting work on a new phenomenon, the promotion of religious freedom in the foreign policy of the EU. I heard him give a paper on the subject at the conference at Harvard earlier this month. Last week, he had an op-ed in La Stampa describing a proposed unit within the EU’s new diplomatic corps, the European External Relations Service, devoted to the protection of religious freedom abroad. This unit, which is modeled after the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, is perceived as especially important in the context of the Arab Spring. Annicchino argues that the unit must have power to impose sanctions for violations of religious freedom; economic agreements the EU has with third countries may provide a mechanism. Here’s the link (in Italian).
Blogging the Rome Conference: State-Sponsored Religious Displays in the US and Europe
Last week, CLR hosted a conference in Rome on state-sponsored religious displays, along with our colleagues at the Department of Law at LUMSA. The conference, held at LUMSA’s main campus in the Borgo, drew about 100 people and included panels on the cultural and religious meanings of symbols, the Lautsi case and the margin of appreciation, and a comparison of American and European jurisprudence. I moderated one panel and spoke on another, so I couldn’t take notes on everything. Here are some notes on a few of the day’s very fine presentations, though. Selected papers will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies.
Silvio Ferrari (University of Milan) opened the conference by offering a framework for understanding state-sponsored religious displays. After describing the three models European nations have adopted with respect to such displays, Ferrari noted the central problem: “religious” symbols often have a variety of meanings, both religious and cultural, that one cannot easily disentangle. He suggested relying on Jurgen Habermas’s distinction between an “informal” public space, like a town square, and an “institutional” public space, like a courtroom. In the former, Ferrari argued, religious symbols might be permissible; in the latter, they should be prohibited. He concluded by stressing the benefits of the debate on state-sponsored religious symbols. The debate itself is important, he argued, because it forces people to take religious symbols seriously as a public question.
In the day’s second panel, Monica Lugato (LUMSA) gave a paper on the conceptual roots of the margin of appreciation doctrine, which played a central role in the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Lautsi. She explained how the doctrine, which grants national governments discretion in applying the rights guaranteed by the European Convention, follows from basic rules of treaty interpretation and coheres with the principle of subsidiarity. My CLR colleague Marc DeGirolami followed with a paper on the shift from an abstract, single-value jurisprudence to one that considers the many possible meanings of religious symbols. For example, he argued, the Latin cross has many possible references; he praised the new recognition of the multiple meanings of religious symbols in American and European jurisprudence. Cole Durham (BYU) ended the panel with a call for an authentic “pluralistic secularity,” a midway point between “confessionalism” and “fundamentalist secularism,” that would allow national majorities to celebrate their culture but not impose religion on minorities. Durham argued that the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Lautsi struck an appropriate balance in this regard.
50,000
Last week, CLR Forum reached something of a milestone: 50,000 views since going live last August. On behalf of our team, let me say thanks to our readers. And please keep visiting us!
“I die the Company’s good servant, but God’s first.”
Today is the feast of St. Thomas More, patron Saint of lawyers.
Although the quotation above does not capture his final words with complete accuracy, it raises an issue that I have often pondered as a corporate law scholar.
Fortnight for Freedom
As Mark mentioned back in April, yesterday kicked off the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference’s “Fortnight for Freedom.” As per the USCCB’s website, this is:
“special period of prayer, study catechesis, and public action [that] will emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country have scheduled special events that support a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”
This is truly an unprecedented development on a variety of levels (at least in terms of recent American history), which makes media’s silence and scant coverage deafening.
Ellis, Emon, & Glahn (eds.), “Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law”
In September, Oxford University Press will publish Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law edited by Mark S. Ellis (Executive Director, International Bar Association), Anver M. Emon, (University of Toronto Faculty of Law), and Benjamin Glahn (Former Program Director, Salzburg Global Seminar). The publisher’s description follows.
The relationship between Islamic law and international human rights law has been the subject of considerable, and heated, debate in recent years. The usual starting point has been to test one system by the standards of the other, asking is Islamic law ‘compatible’ with international human rights standards, or vice versa. This approach quickly ends in acrimony and accusations of misunderstanding. By overlaying one set of norms on another we overlook the deeply contextual nature of how legal rules operate in a society, and meaningful comparison and discussion is impossible. Read more
Koppelman, “Defending American Religious Neutrality”
This November, Harvard University Press will release Defending American Religious Neutrality by Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern University School of Law). The publisher’s description follows.
Although it is often charged with hostility toward religion, First Amendment doctrine in fact treats religion as a distinctive human good. It insists, however, that this good be understood abstractly, without the state taking sides on any theological question. Here, a leading scholar of constitutional law explains the logic of this uniquely American form of neutrality—more religion-centered than liberal theorists propose, and less overtly theistic than conservatives advocate.
The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion is under threat. Growing numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, seem ready to cast aside the ideal of American religious neutrality. Andrew Koppelman defends that ideal and explains why protecting religion from political manipulation is imperative in an America of growing religious diversity. Read more
When it comes to religion, everybody’s an expert
A phenomenon I’ve noticed increasingly of late is the tendency of individuals to opine on particularly weighty religious matters despite their rather extreme ignorance regarding these very same matters. I’ve seen this regularly on Facebook, but even on more formal occasions – such as commencement addresses.
Indeed, the phenomenon extends to (and, in fact, is commonly manifested by) statements made by non-Christians regarding questions of Christian belief and practice.
As I would not opine seriously on the best procedures to follow with respect to open-heart surgery (as I have absolutely no medical training), why are so many others who have never had anything to do with religion so quick to comment on serious matters of religion?
The Vatican Secret Archives
Yesterday, Mark, our dean Michael Simons, and I went to the Capitoline Museums in Rome. The Capitoline is one of the most famous of Rome’s museums, but we actually spent most of our time at the absolutely incredible exhibition of the Vatican Secret Archives (there was an amusing note explaining that in Italian “segreto” just means “private,” not “secret”…but they felt pretty secret to me). For those interested in law and religion, you really couldn’t ask for a more exciting exhibit.
Among the many highlights:
- The Dictatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII
- A petition from many members of the House of Lords asking Pope Clement VII to grant Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon, to which they attached their individual seals
- Leo X’s papal bull excommunicating Luther, and Charles V’s corresponding imperial edict divesting Luther of any civil protection
- A surprisingly obsequious letter by Voltaire to Pope Benedict XIV telling him in ornate terms how great he was (in fact, he was pretty great)
I surreptitiously (‘segretamente’) took a few pictures of some additional documents of special relevance, which I’ll put up when I get back.
Rome Conference: State-Sponsored Religious Displays
Marc and I are in Rome this week, where CLR is co-hosting, along with the Libera Universita Maria SS. Assunta (LUMSA), an international conference, “State-Sponsored Religious Displays in the US and Europe.” The conference, which takes place tomorrow at LUMSA’s main campus in the Borgo, addresses the treatment of religious displays in different legal systems, focusing on recent cases like Salazar v. Buono in the US Supreme Court and Lautsi v. Italy in the European Court of Human Rights. We have a great lineup of speakers, including Tom Berg, Cole Durham, Silvio Ferrari, and Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain. Details are here. CLR Forum readers in Rome, stop by and say hello.