Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

The C.S. Lewis Collection: Essays and Speeches

A very nice looking new collection of six essays and speeches by the famous BritishLewis Book theologian and man of letters, published by HarperCollins. The volume includes “The Weight of Glory,” “God in the Dock,” and “Present Concerns,” among others.

Here’s a passage from Lewis’s essay, “Equality” (which I believe was originally one of the contributions to “Present Concerns”), that is altogether scandalous when measured against the predominant views about equality today (and all the more interesting for that):

I do not think that equality is one of those things (like wisdom or happiness) which are good simply in themselves and for their own sakes. I think it is in the same class as medicine, which is good because we are ill, or clothes which are good because we are no longer innocent. I don’t think the old authority in kings, priests, husbands, or fathers, and the old obedience in subjects, laymen, wives, and sons, was in itself a degrading or evil thing at all. I think it was intrinsically as good and beautiful as the nakedness of Adam and Eve. It was rightly taken away because men became bad and abused it. To attempt to restore it now would be the same error as that of the Nudists. Legal and economic equality are absolutely necessary remedies for the Fall, and protection against cruelty.

But medicine is not good. There is no spiritual sustenance in flat equality. It is a dim recognition of this fact which makes much of our political propaganda sound so thin. We are trying to be enraptured by something which is merely the negative condition of the good life. That is why the imagination of people is so easily captured by appeals to the craving for inequality, whether in a romantic form of films about loyal courtiers or in the brutal form of Nazi ideology. The tempter always works on some real weakness in our own system of values — offers food to some need which we have starved.

When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget, but as an ideal, we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracy, as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of privileged societies. It will kill us all if it grows unchecked.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

“Milton and Catholicism” (Corthell & Corns, eds.)

Quite apart from his literary work (Lycidas may be the most perfect elegy ever composed), John Milton is renowned for his political essays. I remember in a First Amendment free speech course in law school being told that Areopagitica was the best early defense and model of our modern free speech rights bar none. And there are, indeed, some memorable lines in it (“Hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye”).

But from time to time, I have wondered about the strength of the American freedom of speech as descended from its earliest Miltonian defense, down through Madison, Mill, and the libertarian model of the twentieth century. At any rate, this new series of essays, Milton and Catholicism, edited by Ronald Corthell (English, Purdue) and Thomas N. Corns (English Literature, Bangor), explore the relationship of Milton’s thought to the Catholicism of 17th century Europe. Not a particularly congenial relationship, of course, and I hazard a guess that the rabidly anti-prelatical themes that are so dear to Milton in Areopagitica (and, mutatis mutandis, so important to contemporary liberalism) make at least an appearance in the book.

The book is published by Notre Dame press and the publisher’s description is below.

This collection of original essays by literary critics and historians analyzes a wide range of Milton’s writing, from his early poetry, through his mid-century political prose, to De Doctrina Christiana, which was unpublished in his lifetime, and finally to his last and greatest poems. The contributors investigate the rich variety of approaches to Milton’s engagement with Catholicism and its relationship to reformed religion. The essays address latent tensions and contradictions, explore the nuances of Milton’s relationship to the easy commonplaces of Protestant compatriots, and disclose the polemical strategies and tactics that often shape that engagement.

The contributors link Milton and Catholicism with early modern confessional conflicts between Catholics and Protestants that in turn led to new models and standards of authority, scholarship, and interiority. In Milton’s case, he deployed anti-Catholicism as a rhetorical device and the negative example out of which Protestants could shape their identity. The contributors argue that Milton’s anti-Catholicism aligns with his understanding of inwardness and conscience and illuminates one of the central conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the period. Building on recent scholarship on Catholic and anti-Catholic discourses over the English Tudor and Stuart period, new understandings of martyrdom, and scholarship on Catholic women, Milton and Catholicism provides a diverse and multifaceted investigation into a complex and little-explored field in Milton studies.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Budziszewski, “Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtue Ethics”

“Virtue is a good quality of the mind that enables us to live in an upright way and cannot be employed badly – one which God brings about in us, without us.” One of the many important ideas and themes in Thomas Aquinas’s formidable masterpiece, the Summa Theologiae, is the concept of virtue. J. Budziszewski (government and philosophy, UT Austin), introduces Aquinas’s thought by contrasting it with today’s more popular value pluralism in this new, close reading of the Summa. The book is published by CUP and the description is below.

Although St Thomas Aquinas famously claimed that his Summa Theologiae was written for ‘beginners’, contemporary readers find it unusually difficult. Now, amid a surge of interest in virtue ethics J. Budziszewski clarifies and analyzes the text’s challenging arguments about the moral, intellectual, and spiritual virtues, with a spotlight on the virtue of justice. In what might be the first contemporary commentary on Aquinas’s virtue ethics, he juxtaposes the original text with paraphrase and detailed discussion, guiding us through its complex arguments and classical rhetorical figures. Keeping an eye on contemporary philosophical issues, he contextualizes one of the greatest virtue theorists in history and brings Aquinas into the interdisciplinary debates of today. His brisk and clear style illuminates the most crucial of Aquinas’ writings on moral character and guides us through the labyrinth of this difficult but pivotal work.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 1 Comment

Call for Panels: Comparative Law, Faith & Religion

The American Society of Comparative Law has announced that the theme of this year’s meeting in Washington in October will be “Comparative Law, Faith & Religion: The Role of Faith in Law.” The Society has issued a call for panels with a deadline of June 1:

Examples of diverse topics that such a conference could address are: (1) historical or modern day attitudes that result in having faith in a legal tradition or developing religious attitudes towards secular texts such as the U.S. constitution; (2) a comparison of secular faith with religious faith in a legal system, perhaps looking at the history and development of western democracies; (3) the role of Christianity in development of common and/or civil law traditions; (4) comparative approaches to legal ethics and the influence of religion on development and implementation of
ethical rules for lawyers and judges; (5) Islamic visions of dispute settlement and the role of Islamic law in modern day commercial arbitration; (6) the role of Catholicism in development of family law in Latin America; (7) Laws of the nation’s secular authority as faithless law; (8) the continuing influence of Hindu “law”; (9) whether there is such a thing as Buddhist law?; (10) the influence of the Talmud on modern western legal systems or (11) the challenge of teaching about religion in a law school setting; etc. Interdisciplinary work is encouraged.

Further details are here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Oman, “The Dignity of Commerce”

Here’s a fine new book from William & Mary Law professor Nate Oman (who, by the way, will be joining out Tradition Project this fall), The Dignity of Commerce: Markets and the Moral Foundations of Contract Law (University of Chicago Press). The book argues that liberal markets are a mechanism for promoting pluralism and tolerance, including religious tolerance. As Nate knows, I’m a bit skeptical about parts of his argument and will be doing a fuller review later this summer. But the book shows tremendous learning and is very thought-provoking–a major contribution to the contracts literature. Here’s the description from the publisher’s website:

9780226415529Why should the law care about enforcing contracts? We tend to think of a contract as the legal embodiment of a moral obligation to keep a promise. When two parties enter into a transaction, they are obligated as moral beings to play out the transaction in the way that both parties expect. But this overlooks a broader understanding of the moral possibilities of the market. Just as Shakespeare’s Shylock can stand on his contract with Antonio not because Antonio is bound by honor but because the enforcement of contracts is seen as important to maintaining a kind of social arrangement, today’s contracts serve a fundamental role in the functioning of society.

With The Dignity of Commerce, Nathan B. Oman argues persuasively that well-functioning markets are morally desirable in and of themselves and thus a fit object of protection through contract law. Markets, Oman shows, are about more than simple economic efficiency. To do business with others, we must demonstrate understanding of and satisfy their needs. This ability to see the world from another’s point of view inculcates key virtues that support a liberal society. Markets also provide a context in which people can peacefully cooperate in the absence of political, religious, or ideological agreement. Finally, the material prosperity generated by commerce has an ameliorative effect on a host of social ills, from racial discrimination to environmental destruction.

The first book to place the moral status of the market at the center of the justification for contract law, The Dignity of Commerce is sure to elicit serious discussion about this central area of legal studies.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Tugendhat, “Liberty Intact”

As readers of this blog know, the Center is in the midst of a three-year research project, the Tradition Project, which examines the continuing relevance of tradition–the received wisdom of the past–for law, politics, and culture. At our first meeting last fall, we focused on tradition in law and, specifically, the traditionalism of the common law method. A new book by Sir Michael Tugendhat, a Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Liberty Intact: Human Rights in English Law (Oxford) argues that contemporary human rights law derives from English common law antecedents. Several participants in the Tradition Project would no doubt agree. Here’s a description from the Oxford website:

9780198790990 (1)What are the connections between conceptions of rights found in English law and those found in bills of rights around the World? How has English Common Law influenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950? These questions and more are answered in Michael Tugendhat’s historical account of human rights from the eighteenth century to present day.

Focusing specifically on the first modern declarations of the rights of mankind- the ‘Virginian Declaration of Rights’, 1776, the French ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen’, 1789, and the ‘United States Bill of Rights’, 1791- the book recognises that the human rights documented in these declarations of the eighteenth century were already enshrined in English common law, many originating from English law and politics of the fifteenth century. The influence of English Common Law , taken largely from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, can also be realised in the British revolutions of 1642 and 1688; the American and French Revolutions of 1776 and 1789 respectively; and through them, on the UDHR and ECHR. Moreover, Tugendhat argues that British law, in all but a few instances, either meets or exceeds human rights standards, and thus demonstrates that human rights law is British law and not a recent invention imported from abroad.

Structured in three sections, this volume (I) provides a brief history of human rights; (II) examines the rights found in the American and French declarations and demonstrates their ancestry with English law; and (III) discusses the functions of rights and how they have been, and are, put to use.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Jensen, “The Cross”

A few years ago, the European Court of Human Rights took up a case involving the display of the crucifix in Italian public school classrooms. A claimant argued that displaying a religious symbol in a public school interfered with her right, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to educate her children in accordance with her own, secular humanist beliefs. The Italian government argued, somewhat implausibly, that the crucifix was really a neutral symbol that reflected secular, cultural values. (Hey, that’s what the Italian national courts held). The Court sidestepped the issue of what, exactly, the crucifix represented, but held that, even if the crucifix were a sectarian symbol, its display was permissible under the Convention.

The meaning of the cross has thus been a matter of great controversy recently, a least in a legal sense. A interesting-looking new book from Notre Dame theology professor Robin Jensen, The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy (Harvard) addresses the various meanings of the cross throughout history and up to today. Here’s the description from the Harvard website:

9780674088801-lgThe cross stirs intense feelings among Christians as well as non-Christians. Robin Jensen takes readers on an intellectual and spiritual journey through the two-thousand-year evolution of the cross as an idea and an artifact, illuminating the controversies—along with the forms of devotion—this central symbol of Christianity inspires.

Jesus’s death on the cross posed a dilemma for Saint Paul and the early Church fathers. Crucifixion was a humiliating form of execution reserved for slaves and criminals. How could their messiah and savior have been subjected to such an ignominious death? Wrestling with this paradox, they reimagined the cross as a triumphant expression of Christ’s sacrificial love and miraculous resurrection. Over time, the symbol’s transformation raised myriad doctrinal questions, particularly about the crucifix—the cross with the figure of Christ—and whether it should emphasize Jesus’s suffering or his glorification. How should Jesus’s body be depicted: alive or dead, naked or dressed? Should it be shown at all?

Jensen’s wide-ranging study focuses on the cross in painting and literature, the quest for the “true cross” in Jerusalem, and the symbol’s role in conflicts from the Crusades to wars of colonial conquest. The Cross also reveals how Jews and Muslims viewed the most sacred of all Christian emblems and explains its role in public life in the West today.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Ten Napel, “Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom”

Classical liberalism was supposed to resolve religious conflict within a society, principally by making religion a private matter and, in compensation, allowing religious communities, within limits, to conduct themselves as they saw fit. Today, the classical liberal model is undergoing a lot of stress, as people, particularly on the left, increasingly question what those limits should be. Hans-Martien ten Napel (Leiden University), one of the most interesting scholars in comparative law and religion today, has a new book, Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom: To Be Fully Human (Routledge), that addresses these questions. Here’s the description from the Routledge website:

9781138647152In both Europe and North America it can be argued that the associational and institutional dimensions of the right to freedom of religion or belief are increasingly coming under pressure. This book demonstrates why a more classical understanding of the idea of a liberal democracy can allow for greater respect for the right to freedom of religion or belief.

The book examines the major direction in which liberal democracy has developed over the last fifty years and contends that this is not the most legitimate type of liberal democracy for religiously divided societies. Drawing on theoretical developments in the field of transnational constitutionalism, Hans-Martien ten Napel argues that redirecting the concept and practice of liberal democracy toward the more classical notion of limited, constitutional government, with a considerable degree of autonomy for civil society organizations would allow greater religious pluralism. The book shows how, in a postsecular and multicultural context, modern sources of constitutionalism and democracy, supplemented by premodern, transcendental legitimation, continue to provide the best means of legitimating Western constitutional and political orders.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Call for Papers: Student Writing Competition on Religious Liberty

For law students finishing up notes and term papers on religious liberty, here is a great way to publicize your work and win a prize to boot. The International Center for Law and Religion Studies at BYU is running the eighth annual Religious Liberty Student Writing Competition. The top prize is a $4000 cash award. Here are the details:

Purpose: To promote legal and academic studies in the field of religious liberty by law students and students pursuing related graduate studies. Students who have graduated from law school but who are not yet practicing law due to clerkships or other similar pursuits are also invited to submit papers.

Form: Scholarly paper relating to the topic of domestic or international religious liberty, broadly or narrowly construed, consisting of 9,000-13,000 words, including footnotes. Eligible papers must be typed, thoroughly cited and presented in a format suitable for publication, with no additional editing required. Papers must conform to Bluebook requirements and may include footnotes. Papers prepared for academic coursework are permitted.

Submission: All papers must be submitted on or before July 1, 2017. Papers should be submitted by e-mail to papers@ jrclsdc.org in pdf and/or docx formats. The cover email should note the word count of the paper being submitted. A current resume should also be included. You will receive e-mail confirmation of your submission. Questions regarding submission may be directed to papers@jrclsdc.org.

The deadline is July 1. Further information may be found here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Bordewich, “The First Congress”

The Supreme Court has, on occasion, given the decisions of the First Congress great weight in interpreting the Establishment Clause. The Framers of the First Amendment sat in the First Congress, so it seems plausible to look to their decisions as indications of what the Amendment meant to people at the time. The Court has not strictly held to this approach–when it comes to the Establishment Clause, it doesn’t strictly hold to any approach–but it’s there in the cases.

A new book by author Fergus Bordewich, The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government (Simon & Schuster), discusses the history. The publisher’s description follows.

the-first-congress-9781451692112_hrThis “fascinating” (Chicago Tribune), “lively” (The New York Times) history tells how the First Congress and the Washington administration created one of the most productive and far-reaching governments in American history—“gracefully written…and well worth reading” (The Wall Street Journal).

The First Congress may have been the most important in American history because it established how our government would work. The Constitution was a broad set of principles that left undefined the machinery of government. Fortunately, far-sighted, brilliant, and determined men such as Washington, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson (and others less well known today) labored to create a functioning government.

In The First Congress, award-winning author Fergus Bordewich brings to life the achievements of the First Congress: it debated and passed the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which we know as the Bill of Rights; admitted North Carolina and Rhode Island to the union when they belatedly ratified the Constitution, then admitted two new states, Kentucky and Vermont, establishing the procedure for admitting new states on equal terms with the original thirteen; chose the site of the national capital, a new city to be built on the Potomac; created a national bank to handle the infant republic’s finances; created the first cabinet positions and the federal court system; and many other achievements. But it avoided the subject of slavery, which was too contentious to resolve.

The First Congress takes us back to the days when the future of our country was by no means assured and makes “an intricate story clear and fascinating” (The Washington Post).