Posted on by

Foster, “Faith in Empire”

In March, the Stanford University Press will publish Faith in Empire: Religion, Politics, and Colonial Rule in French Senegal, 1880-1940 by Elizabeth A. Foster (Tufts University). The publisher’s description follows.Faith in Empire

Faith in Empire is an innovative exploration of French colonial rule in West Africa, conducted through the prism of religion and religious policy. Elizabeth Foster examines the relationships among French Catholic missionaries, colonial administrators, and Muslim, animist, and Christian Africans in colonial Senegal between 1880 and 1940. In doing so she illuminates the nature of the relationship between the French Third Republic and its colonies, reveals competing French visions of how to approach Africans, and demonstrates how disparate groups of French and African actors, many of whom were unconnected with the colonial state, shaped French colonial rule. Among other topics, the book provides historical perspective on current French controversies over the place of Islam in the Fifth Republic by exploring how Third Republic officials wrestled with whether to apply the legal separation of church and state to West African Muslims.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Libya Arrests Foreign Nationals on Proselytism Charge

Americans are often surprised to learn that many foreign countries have anti-proselytism laws. Often, these laws define proselytism as something beyond run-of-the-mill evangelizing. Proselytism typically connotes coercion and undue influence: the religious hard sell. Encouraging listeners to convert in exchange for food or money would qualify, for example; persuading listeners that your faith is the true one would not. On this view, proselytism is a sort of religious unfair trade practice, and anti-proselytism laws a consumer protection device.

I’m ambivalent about these laws in principle. History contains many examples of missionaries who exploited the poverty and ignorance of their listeners, and it seems to me societies could have a legitimate interest in discouraging that sort of thing. Not all countries have signed up for the American version of the religious free market, after all, nor does civilization require them to do so. 

But anti-proselytism laws have two major flaws. First, as a recent UN report argues, it is very difficult to draw a line between proselytism and protected religious expression. When does evangelism become coercive? When the missionaries establish a soup kitchen? Or a school? It’s very easy for religious competitors to fabricate evidence of missionaries’ bad faith. History contains many examples of that, too.

Second, and more important, anti-proselytism laws are often written and applied in transparently one-sided ways. Many Muslim-majority countries, for example, prohibit only proselytism directed at Muslims. Proselytism directed at non-Muslims is legal. And one doesn’t need to engage in coercion or bad faith to violate these laws. Straightforward evangelism will do.

Events in Libya this past weekend provide an illustration. Libya arrested four foreign nationals and charged them with proselytism–a crime that carries the death penalty. Apparently, the four were caught printing and distributing Bibles. A report in the Guardian reveals the locals’ shock that anyone would have the gall to do such a thing:

Benghazi lawyer and human rights activist Bilal Bettamer said Libya was a wholly Muslim country and Christians should not be trying to spread their faith. “It is disrespectful. If we had Christianity we could have dialogue, but you can’t just spread Christianity,” he said. “The maximum penalty is the death penalty. It’s a dangerous thing to do.”

And this guy is a human rights activist. Even Christians expressed dismay at what the foreigners were accused of doing, though perhaps Libyan Christians have no other choice. According to the local Anglican priest:

the five Christian churches in Tripoli have a tacit agreement with the authorities not to proselytize. “We don’t distribute literature, so we don’t have any problems,” he told the Guardian. “It is better not to indulge in these activities because we respect Libyans. We respect their religion.”

As of Monday, the foreigners have also been charged with espionage. The prisoners have been given access to their embassies, but one of the four, a Christian from Egypt, told reporters he had not requested assistance. He assumes the Egyptian government will do nothing to help him.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Movsesian to Speak at Religion Communicators Council

CLR Forum readers in New York City:  I’ll be speaking next Wednesday, February 20, at a meeting of the Religion Communicators Council. My talk will address the emerging field of law and religion. Details are here. Please stop by and say hello!

Posted on by JCPW

Around the Web This Week

Some interesting law & religion stories from around the web this week:

Posted on by JCPW

Gauthier & Martikainen (eds.),”Religion in the Neoliberal Age”

ReligioninNeoliberalAgeThis January, Ashgate Publishing published Religion in the Neoliberal Age: Political Economy and Modes of Governance edited by François Gauthier (University of Fribourg) and Tuomas Martikainen (University of Helsinki). The publisher’s description follows.

This book, together with a complementary volume ‘Religion in Consumer Society’, focuses on religion, neoliberalism and consumer society; offering an overview of an emerging field of research in the study of contemporary religion. Claiming that we are entering a new phase of state-religion relations, the editors examine how this is historically anchored in modernity but affected by neoliberalization and globalization of society and social life. Seemingly distant developments, such as marketization and commoditization of religion as well as legalization and securitization of social conflicts, are transforming historical expressions of ‘religion’ and ‘religiosity’ yet these changes are seldom if ever understood as forming a coherent, structured and systemic ensemble.

‘Religion in the Neoliberal Age’ includes an extensive introduction framing the research area, and linking it to existing scholarship, before looking at four key issues: 1. How changes in state structures have empowered new modes of religious activity in welfare production and the delivery of a range of state services; 2. How are religion-state relations transforming under the pressures of globalization and neoliberalism; 3. How historical churches and their administrations are undergoing change due to structural changes in society, and what new forms of religious body are emerging; 4. How have law and security become new areas for solving religious conflicts. Outlining changes in both the political-institutional and cultural spheres, the contributors offer an international overview of developments in different countries and state of the art representation of religion in the new global political economy.

Posted on by JCPW

Cohen-Almagor on Religious, Hateful, and Racist Speech in Israel

Raphael Cohen-Almagor (University of Hull) has posted Religious, Hateful, and Racist Speech in Israel. The abstract follows.

This essay is a study in politics and law. The first section of the paper explains Israel’s vulnerability as a Jewish, multicultural democracy in a hostile region, with significant schisms that divide the nation. Given Israel’s tenuous conditions, this paper is set to observe how Israel has coped with destabilizing expressions that aim to increase the rifts in society and to promote hatred against the other, whoever the other might be. This essay is largely concerned with Israel’s policy on hate speech and racial expressions as they have come into expression by religious authorities, and in that sense this study supplements similar studies conducted in the past. Those expressions have stemmed from the ideologically motivated religious authorities against two groups of people: those who aimed to give away parts of Israel’s territory, and Palestinian Arabs.

The paper presents the State Attorney’s stance regarding extreme statements made in the context of the disengagement from Gaza. Following that presentation, the paper continues by addressing the issue of religious incitement by Jewish and Moslem sages. What is suggested about fighting bigotry emanating from Jewish religious teaching is true also for hatred emanating from Islam. The argument is made that the State cannot sit idly by while senior officials incite racism and undermine the State’s democratic values. Such officials should be discharged of all responsibilities. The State ought to weigh the costs of allowing hate speech, as well as the risks involved, and balance these against the costs and risks to democracy and free speech associated with censorship. Israel needs to protect its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, as well as to protect itself as a Jewish democracy. In doing so, Israel should not unnecessarily infringe on free expression or create discriminatory situations. It is not a small feat to achieve both. A balance needs to be struck between competing social interests. Freedom of expression is important as is the protection of vulnerable minorities.

Posted on by

Smith, “A Cautious Enthusiasm”

A Cautious EnthusiasmThis month, University of South Carolina Press will publish A Cautious Enthusiasm by Samuel C. Smith (Liberty University). The publisher’s description follows.

 A Cautious Enthusiasm examines the religious, social, and political interplay between eighteenth-century evangelicalism and the Anglican establishment in the lowcountry South. Samuel C. Smith argues that the subjective spirituality inherent in evangelical religion was a catalyst toward political and social consensus among influential Anglican laymen. Smith finds that a close examination of the writings and actions of religion-minded South Carolinians such as Henry Laurens, Christopher Gadsden, and Anglican clergymen Robert Smith and Richard Clarke reveals the influence of evangelical zeal at the highest levels of society.

Taking his study even deeper into the religious life of low country society, Smith identifies radically pietistic elements, some of which originated in the mystical writings and practices of European Roman Catholics, German Pietists, and Huguenot Calvinists. Central to this study is the recognition of Catholic mysticism’s impact on the experiential side of early evangelicalism, a subject rarely explored in historical works.

A Cautious Enthusiasm provides a rare examination of Great Awakening revivalism among lowcountry Anglicans by tracing the European origins into the lowcountry South. This study demonstrates how elements of mystical religiosity prodded some to associate evangelical revivalists with Catholicism and displays how subjective elements of religion contributed to a unique patriotic consensus among lowcountry Anglicans in the Revolutionary era.

Posted on by

Al-Rasheed, Kersten, & Shterin, “Demystifying the Caliphate”

Demystifying the CaliphateThis month, Columbia University Press will publish Demystifying the Caliphate by Madawi Al-Rasheed (King’s College, London), Carool Kersten (King’s College, London), Marat Shterin (King’s College, London). The publisher’s description follows.

 In the Western imagination, the Islamic Caliphate is often linked to acts of beheading, stoning, and discrimination against women and non-Muslim minorities. Rallies in support of resurrecting the Caliphate seem deserving of derision and are believed to be the first steps toward the dismantling of the democratic state. Yet while some Muslims may be nostalgic for the Caliphate, very few are actively making its return a reality. The Caliphate serves more as a powerful symbol and slogan, evoking an imagined past and an ideal Islamic polity. It is also a vastly unstable concept contested by a number of powerful actors within Europe, the Muslim world, and beyond.

The essays in this collection demystify the Caliphate for modern readers, clarifying the historical rumors surrounding the demise of the last Ottoman Caliphate and the contemporary controversies informing the call to resurrect it. Contributors include impartial historians and social scientists who concentrate on the fundamental aspects of the Caliphate and unpack its lingering presence in the minds of diverse Muslims. From London to the Northern Caucasus, from Jakarta to Baghdad and Istanbul, contributors explore the Caliphate within the context of global and globalized publics and against the new reality of the Muslim umma as a multifaceted community.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

How the Supreme Court Found the Wall

Many Americans know that the Supreme Court has stated that the Framers intended the Establishment Clause “to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” A smaller number know that the Court was quoting a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut–a bit of bad history, since Jefferson’s  idiosyncratic views did not fairly reflect the consensus on church-state relations at the time of the Framing. A still smaller number know that the metaphor of the wall goes back even further, to Roger Williams, who adapted it from the Book of Isaiah.

But hardly anyone knows the very interesting story that historian and sometime CLR Forum guest Don Drakeman (Church, State, and Original Intent) tells in a recent paper. In “Why Do We Think the American Framers Wanted to Separate Church and State?,” delivered at Oxford’s Rothmere American Institute last month, Don explains that Chief Justice Morrison Waite (above) first used the metaphor in Reynolds v United States (1878), a case involving a ban on polygamy. According to Drakeman, Waite came upon the metaphor more or less by accident. Waite happened to live next door to the eminent American historian George Bancroft, for whom Jefferson was a hero. Waite consulted Bancroft about the case, and Bancroft advised that, if Waite wanted to know the Framers’ views on establishment, he should consult Jefferson:

The Chief Justice then went to the library and skimmed through the index to Jefferson’s collected works. There, he discovered an 1802 letter, in which Jefferson said that the First Amendment built a “wall of separation between church and state.” This statement had been buried for nearly 80 years until Chief Justice Waite unearthed it and cemented it into the foundations of church-state jurisprudence. Bancroft, by the way, got a thank-you note, but no visible credit for creating the Jeffersonian First Amendment.

So much for good originalism. Indeed, so much for ex parte communications about a pending lawsuit! But there it is. Don’s essay is a delight. Check it out here.

Posted on by

Cilardo (ed.), “The Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence”

Last December, I.B. Tauris Publishers published The Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence: Law Under the Fatimids edited by Agostino Cilardo (Naples Eastern University). The publisher’s description follows.The Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence

Since the early 1930s, researchers have shed light on the literary production of the Ismailis. The cataloguing of these works has been carried out by Ivanow, Fyzee, Goriawala, Poonawala, Gacek, Cortese and de Blois. Many works attributed to Ismaili scholars, however, are still unavailable, either because they remain hidden in private collections, or because they have not survived. As regards Ismaili law, in particular, it is still a largely unexplored field of study. Al-Qadi Abu Hanifa al-Nu’man is generally considered as the founder and the greatest exponent of Ismaili jurisprudence. Many of his works have been lost; scattered information on some others is found here and there; some works are still in manuscript form; few others have been published.This book is a critical edition and translation of al-Nu’man’s Minhaj al-fara’id, based on the three known copies of it. It deals with the law of inheritance, one of the most difficult Islamic law institutions throughout Islamic law.