Happy to announce that the latest episode in our animated video series, “Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom,” is now available on our YouTube channel. This episode covers Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), in which a Jehovah’s Witness was convicted of inciting a breach of the peace after playing an anti-Catholic phonograph record in a Catholic neighborhood. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Cantwell’s conviction was unconstitutional, establishing for the first time that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause applies to state laws through the Fourteenth Amendment. The case demonstrates how the Constitution protects offensive religious speech absent physical threats or an imminent danger to public order. This precedent remains crucial in today’s debates about religious “hate speech” and the balance between free expression and public safety. Take a look!
Berner on Educational Pluralism
I’m late getting to this, but I did want to note Ashley Rogers Berner’s most recent book on educational pluralism, Educational Pluralism and Democracy: How to Handle Indoctrination, Promote Exposure, and Rebuild America’s Schools (Harvard). Ashley, a professor of education at Johns Hopkins, is a longtime friend of the Mattone Center who participated in our Tradition Project several years ago. She has written a great deal about how different perspectives, including religious, can benefit K-12 education, and is always worth reading. Here’s the description of the book from the publisher:
In Educational Pluralism and Democracy, education policy expert Ashley Rogers Berner envisions a K–12 education system that serves both the individual and the common good. Calling for education reform that will enable US public schools to fulfill the longstanding promise of American education, Berner proposes a radical reimagining of both the structure and content of US public school systems. She urges policymakers to embrace educational pluralism, an internationally common model in which the government funds diverse types of schools that deliver more universal content.
Providing an incisive assessment of democratic education throughout the world, Berner argues that educational pluralism can build students’ exposure to diverse viewpoints and shared knowledge within distinctive school communities. She shows how pluralism steers a middle path that enables equitable access, promotes academic excellence, and avoids the zero-sum games that characterize US education policy. Pluralism, she observes, will ultimately serve democracy by defusing polarization and increasing social mobility, political tolerance, and civic engagement.
In this thought-provoking proposal, Berner lays out a roadmap for big-picture reform, expertly delineating the mechanisms through which educational norms can change. A practical conclusion describes concrete moves that advocates can pursue to garner support and advance new legislation.
Center Co-Hosts Symposium on Oklahoma Charter School Case
Last night, the Center co-hosted its annual symposium with the St. John’s Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, with guests Professors Michael Helfand of Pepperdine and Michael Moreland of Villanova. A great discussion about the Oklahoma Catholic Charter School case, which SCOTUS will hear later this month. I’ll post the video when it becomes available.
Mattone Center Participates in Law and Religion Moot Court in Rome
Last week, the Mattone Center’s student fellows–Noa Cadet, Riki Markowitz, Karina Mesrobian, and Panayiotis Xenakis, participated in the 8th International Law and Religion Moot Court Competition in Rome. The competition gathers law students from Europe and the US to argue a mock case before panels representing the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. This was the first time the Mattone Center fielded a team in the competition. Congrats to our team, especially oralists Noa Cadet and Riki Markowitz, and many thanks to Jim Herschlein ’85 for helping to coach!
Moschella on the New Natural Law
This month, the University of Notre Dame Press publishes an introduction what it calls the “new natural law,” Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law: Principles for Human Flourishing, by philosopher Melissa Moschella (Notre Dame). I’m in over my head here, but as I understand it, its proponents argue that new natural law theory (NNLT) integrates the three elements of goods, norms, and virtues more successfully than other approaches. Readers must judge for themselves. Here’s the description from the Notre Dame website:
The foundational principles of ethics and politics are principles that guide us to respect and promote human flourishing. In Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law Melissa Moschella provides an accessible explanation and development of the new natural law account of these principles while clarifying common misconceptions.
As a commonsense ethical theory, natural law grounds ethics in the fundamental dimensions of human flourishing. Moschella lays out the basic principles of natural law, their relationship to the virtues, and their social and political implications. Highlighting the importance of communities for flourishing, Moschella explains how this should shape our understanding of justice and the common good, and shows how natural law principles support limited government and civil liberties. She also considers the relationship between morality and God, and how natural law relates to Christian revelation. This fresh and compelling account of new natural law is the go-to resource to understand this important and influential theory.
Marginalized Religions in the Roman Empire
Most are familiar with the Roman Empire’s treatment of Christianity–which, the conventional account goes, was uniquely bad. But, argues classicist K.P.S. Janssen in a book out this month from Oxford University Press, Marginalized Religion and the Law in the Roman Empire, Rome marginalized other religions as well, and treated them quite similarly in legal terms. Readers can evaluate the argument for themselves. Here’s the description from the Oxford website:
The Roman Empire’s approach to religion has traditionally been described in paradoxical terms. On the one hand, Rome has often been regarded as almost proverbially tolerant, as well as highly flexible in its dealings with the diverse range of religious cults and practices within its territories. On the other hand, the Roman religious landscape was not without its limits, and there were certain groups who found themselves, for one reason or another, on the outside. The legal interactions between these groups and the Roman authorities have largely been studied in isolation. In Marginalized Religion and the Law in the Roman Empire, K. P. S. Janssen instead takes a comparative approach, and investigates how members of various marginalized religious groups were embedded in, and interacted with, the wider Roman legal system. The legal positions of private diviners, Jewish communities and early Christians are compared and contrasted to provide a broader perspective on the legal treatment of marginalized religion in the Roman world. Janssen argues that the known interactions between these respective groups and the Roman authorities are best understood within the wider context of Roman law and administration, and that they furthermore shared a number of important characteristics. While the treatment these groups received was certainly not in all respects identical, the procedural, socio-political, and ideological mechanisms that underpinned the relevant legal measures were nonetheless conspicuously similar.
Theocratic Criminal Law in Iran
The word “theocratic” gets tossed around a lot these days. Usually, it is used to designate what the speaker believes to be a too-close relationship between religion and the state that results in a law or policy the speaker doesn’t like. But genuine theocracies, where clerics serve as the ultimate political authority, are pretty scare. One such theocracy is Iran. A new book from Oxford University Press, On Theocratic Criminal Law: The Rule of Religion and Punishment in Iran, discusses the situation. The author is Bahman Khodadadi (Harvard). Here’s the description from the Harvard website:
On Theocratic Criminal Law explores the roots and structures of the criminal law system of the world’s most prominent constitutional theocracy, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
While discussing the processes of forced de-westernization and de-modernization which occurred in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, this work examines how the Islamic conception of civil order and polity has been established within the legal and theological framework of the Iranian Constitution. The book engages in a process of ‘rational reconstruction’ of Iranian theocratic criminal law and offers a critical analysis of the way criminal law functions as the centrepiece of this mode of political domination. It illuminates how this revelation-based, punitive ideology functions, how the current Islamic Penal Code (IPC) mirrors prevailing Shiite jurisprudence, and ultimately, from what sort of fundamental defects theocratic criminal law in Iran is suffering.
This work provides a critical assessment of the criminalization and sentencing theories that have stemmed from the shariatization (Islamization) of all law in the wake of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. By embarking upon a typology of punishment in Shiite Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian Islamic Penal Code the book then provides a systematic critical analysis of the three types of punishment stipulated in the Iranian Penal Code, namely ta’zir, hadd, and qisas. It also explores the jurisprudential principles and dynamic power of Shiite Islam not only as a driving force behind political and social change but as a force that has been capable of forging a whole theocratic legal system.
New Video on Reynolds v. United States
Happy to announce the release of a new video in our YouTube series, “Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom.” The new video examines the landmark 1878 case, Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court’s first decision on the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.
Through the story of George Reynolds, a devout Mormon charged with bigamy, the Court established that although the Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief absolutely, it allows the state to regulate religious conduct–at least if the state has a good reason for doing so. Learn how Chief Justice Waite’s opinion introduced Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor to the Court’s caselaw and why the Court rejected religious belief as a defense to criminal charges, setting a precedent that still influences religious freedom cases today:
Wearing Religious Symbols in Italy
The US doesn’t have too much trouble with people wearing religious symbols in public places. In Europe, though, this has been a consistent controversy–famously in France, but in other jurisdictions as well. A new book from Routledge, Secularism and Freedom of Religion in Italy, addresses the approach of Italian law. The author is political scientist Maria Cristina Ivaldi (University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli). Here’s the publisher’s description:
The display of religious symbols in the public space has been the subject of much debate. This book provides an overview of the presence of religious symbols in Italian public institutions from a legal standpoint.
The situation is analysed from the perspective of the principles of laicità/secularism, as defined by the Constitutional Court, and freedom of religion. It is argued that while the display of religious symbols in public institutions has been widely investigated doctrinally, the wearing of religious symbols in Italy has generally been neglected. Key cases are examined in light of national jurisprudence as well as intervention by the European Court of Human Rights and relevant judgments from foreign courts regarding this issue. Finally, the work considers the presence of religious symbols that transcend national borders, as in the case of arts, sport and advertising. A comparison is made with the French system which takes a very different approach. The book outlines possible ways forward in light of the growing interculturality of European societies.
It will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers and policy-makers working in the areas of law and religion, and comparative law.
Burge on the American Religious Landscape
For many years, I have profited from the work of political scientist Ryan Burge (Eastern Illinois University). His monographs on the composition of religious groups in the US have been quite valuable, especially when it comes to chronicling the rise of the Nones. He’s always thorough, readable, and insightful. So I’m looking forward to his latest monograph from Oxford University Press, The American Religious Landscape: Facts, Trends, and the Future. Oxford will release the book next month. Here’s the description from the Oxford website:
At its founding, the United States was an overwhelmingly Protestant country. However, over the last 250 years, it has become increasingly diverse with tens of millions of Catholics, millions of Latter-day Saints, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, alongside a rapidly increasing share of Americans who claim no religious affiliation at all.
The American Religious Landscape uses an in-depth statistical analysis of large datasets to answer foundational questions about this diversity, such as: How many Hindus are there in the US? Which state has the highest concentration of Muslims? Are atheists more highly educated than the general population? How many Roman Catholics attend Mass weekly? It focuses on the overall size, geographic distribution, and demographic composition of twelve different religious groups in short and accessible chapters that, taken together, serve as a basic introduction to the state of religion in America. Through dozens of charts, graphs, and maps–designed for readability and clarity–readers will be left with a solid understanding of the contours of contemporary American religion and what it could look like in the future.