Pin on Human Dignity

Very happy to announce the publication this month of Andrea Pin’s latest book, Dignity in Judgment: Constitutional Adjudication in Comparative Perspective (Oxford). Andrea is a Full Professor at Padua and one of the world’s leading scholars in comparative constitutional law–as well as a friend of the Mattone Center and frequent participant in our program. Always worth reading!

Here is the description from the Oxford website:

Dignity is a complex philosophical, theological, and constitutional concept. Courts have often progressively distanced the notion of dignity in constitutional law from its religious connotation to emphasize individual autonomy and self-determination. This process has made the notion of dignity less ambiguous, but narrower and more controversial.

Dignity in Judgment: Constitutional Adjudication in Comparative Perspective compares how the apex courts of Canada, Colombia, Egypt, the EU, and Israel operationalize the concept of dignity in their case law. While these countries share an Abrahamic faith and secularization tendencies, these legal systems host a plurality of societal values, and their courts have the reputation of having an activist approach to adjudication. This book offers an in depth-analysis of key decisions that reflect or use the concept of dignity, including capital punishment, antiterrorism measures, biotechnologies, and same-sex relations to build a model of human dignity that facilitates mutual understandings among and within legal traditions. It shows how religious and secular understandings of dignity have shaped its interpretation through the decades.

Insightful and thought-provoking, Dignity in Judgment explores the concept of dignity as it appears in the law by uncovering its character across different legal cultures and religious contexts.

Mattone Center to Host ICLARS Regional Conference This Weekend

This weekend at St. John’s Law, the Mattone Center will host a regional conference of the International Consortium for Law and Religion Studies (ICLARS), “Education, Religious Freedom, and State Neutrality.” The conference will gather scholars and judges from Europe and the United States. Papers from the conference will appear eventually here on the blog. From the start, the Mattone Center has had a special interest in comparative law and religion, and we’re delighted to continue the tradition in this way

I’ve attached an abbreviated conference program below.

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • A proposed bill would safeguard the citizenship of any American pope and exempt him from taxes while serving. 
  • A federal judge allowed a psychedelic mushroom-using religious group’s lawsuit against Provo City and Utah County to proceed and paused the criminal case against its founder. 
  • A federal district judge blocked an Arkansas law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. 
  • In Jumilla, Spain, a new law bans the use of city sports facilities for cultural, social, or religious activities not organized by the City Council. 
  • The Trump administration has released new guidelines reminding federal agencies that religious expression in the workplace is protected.  
  • The Chinese Communist Party announced new restrictions on religious practice by foreigners in mainland China. 
  • President Trump issued an executive order requiring banks to prevent and address politicized or unlawful debanking based on customers’ political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. 

ICLARS Webinar Tomorrow

Tomorrow, ICLARS will host a webinar on comparative approaches to law and religion, hosted by scholar Renee Barker (University of Western Australia). Details below:

Conference in Messina on Minority Religious Groups

The summer conference season is underway! I’m looking forward to participating later this month (online) in a very interesting conference organized by Professor Adelaide Madera at the University deli Studio di Messina, “Religious Freedom of Minority Groups in Times of Ongoing Crisis.” I’ll be speaking on one of the largest “religious” groups in the US, the Nones. Details about the conference are at the announcement below:

Symposium on the Nones (with a Reply to Me)

I’m a little late getting to this, but a few months ago, the Australian Journal of Law and Religion and Emory’s Canopy Forum jointly published a valuable symposium on the rise of the Nones, with a lead article by Jeremy Patrick (University of South Queensland) that responds to some of my writings on the topic. Jeremy and I come to different judgments about whether Nones should qualify as a religion for legal purposes. Jeremy is persuaded they should; I am skeptical. But it’s always nice to receive careful criticism of one’s work, and I’m grateful to Jeremy and to the symposium’s organizers. You can read Jeremy’s essay, titled “A Brief Rejoinder to Movsesian on ‘The New Thoreaus,'” here.

Legal Spirits 066: The International Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion

We’re back after a bit of a hiatus with a new Legal Spirits episode. Center Director Mark Movsesian talks with Professors Andrea Pin and Luca Vanoni about the International Moot Court Competition in Law and Religion, an annual event that gathers law students from the US and Europe to argue a case before panels representing the European Court of Human Rights and the US Supreme Court. Andrea and Luca discuss how they came up with the idea for this unique competition, its pedagogical goals, and why it has succeeded for a decade and counting. Listen in!

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion stories from around the web:

  • Yeshiva University recently settled a protracted lawsuit with a student-led LGBT group by granting it formal recognition as a student organization, allowing it access to campus facilities and university funding. The lawsuit arose from the school’s refusal to recognize the group on religious grounds, whereas the group claimed such a refusal violated New York antidiscrimination statutes.
  • The state legislature of Kentucky recently passed a joint resolution directing the return of a monument displaying the Ten Commandments to the state’s Capitol Grounds. Temporarily removed during the 1980s due to construction, its return was enjoined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the now-defunct Lemon test as rendering the monument violative of the Establishment Clause. In light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence declaring the Lemon test overruled, the state legislature voted to reinstate the monument.
  • A Catholic diocese and a Christian pregnancy center filed suit against the State of Illinois, challenging recent amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act that prevents discrimination against employees based on their reproductive health choices. The plaintiffs allege that the amendments burden their Free Exercise rights by preventing them from making faith-based employment decisions, and coercing them to associate with individuals whose actions undermine their staunchly pro-life mission.
  • The Kansas state House of Representatives issued a condemnation against a “Black Mass” to take place on the state capitol grounds, citing its clear anti-Catholic animus and blatant disrespect to Christianity. The procession involves the use of a consecrated Catholic host, viewed as a clear mockery and distortion of the Catholic Eucharist, and an alleged affront against the religious sensibilities of “all people of good will.”
  • A New York federal district court ruled that a gender support plan that involved hiding a students social gender transition from her parents did not violate the Free Exercise or Due Process rights of her parents. The Court held that the plaintiff was free to exercise her religious and parental rights over her daughter in the household, and that a school policy that existed for the voluntary benefit of students does not endorse a religious message.

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’zirhadd, 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.

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.