The first time, you don’t notice. The second time, you start to pay attention. By the third time, you can’t help but see a pattern. Three times here at the Forum 2000 Conference, other participants – not, I hasten to say, the other participants on my panels – have asked me, very politely and sincerely, “Why are you interested in law and religion?” The tone of the question is curiosity more than anything else: whatever would make you devote your time to this topic? Now, you might think, this is normal chit-chat among academics at conferences, like “where do you teach?” I have to say, however, that when I’ve attended past conferences in Europe to speak about private international law, no one asked me a similar question. And I’ve never been asked the question in American academic settings. No: religion, here, seems different. There has to be a particular explanation, a reason beyond ordinary academic interest, why someone would make this the subject of his work. It reminded me of something the French sociologist Danièle Hervieu-Léger once wrote. If you study religion in France, she observed, everyone immediately asks you if you’re religious – the implication being, if you invest so much time in the subject, you must have a personal interest. No offense taken, of course. It’s a legitimate question, and all the more credit to the Forum 2000 organizers for making law and religion a theme for the conference. But the question does stand out. Perhaps the question reflects the fact that secularism is the default option for many European intellectuals. – MLM
Liveblogging Forum 2000: Religion and Human Rights
Forum 2000‘s first law-and-religion panel, “Religious Law and Human Rights,” took place this afternoon, chaired by Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan. Prince Hassan opened the panel by speaking of the need for a real “bill of rights” for the “West Asian/North African” region, one that includes the right to be free from religious discrimination. Michael Melchior, the Chief Rabbi of Norway, followed. He noted the size of the audience that had gathered to hear the panel and said it reflected a new interest among intellectuals and policymakers in religion as a social phenomenon. “God,” he said, “has returned to history.” All religions, he continued – speaking of the Abrahamic faiths – have both totalitarian and dialectical impulses; we need to “minimalize the former and maximalize the latter,” and predicted that religious and political leaders have only a limited window of opportunity to accomplish this. Journalist Shahira Amin from Egypt spoke about her doubts that the Arab Spring will usher in a secular society. Although Egypt is historically a moderate society, she said, present-day Egyptian Islam is becoming radicalized as a result of Wahhabi influence. Discrimination against Coptic Christians is a problem. She noted, though, that the Muslim Brotherhood has been speaking in more moderate terms since the revolution, perhaps in an attempt to appear politically responsible. Tibetan Buddhist scholar Geshe Tenzin Dhargye spoke of the two key ethical principles in Buddhism, the laws of causation (karma) and non-harming behavior, and how they would inform a Buddhist approach to law and society. In the final presentation, Bishop Václav Malý of the Catholic Archdiocese of Prague argued that Christianity provided the philosophical roots for human rights, “at least in Europe.” Although people have now forgotten those roots, as a historical matter it was the Christian concept of Imago Dei that implied human dignity and freedom, including freedom of conscience and religion. He ended by saying that the Catholic Church in the Czech Republic does not favor a confessional state, but a pluralist state in which people with different religious and philosophical commitments, including non-religious commitments, can peacefully co-exist. – MLM
For those not fortunate to be liveblogging from Prague, a live feed to Forum 2000 can be found here. – ARH
Inazu on Stanley Hauerwas and the Law
As Marc DeGirolami has previously noted, John D. Inazu (Wash. U. School of Law) organized the September 9, 2011 Law & Contemporary Problems symposium, “Theological Argument in Law: Engaging with Stanley Hauerwas.” Inazu has recently posted a special editor’s introduction to that symposium entitled, Stanley Hauerwas and the Law: Is there Anything to Say? The abstract follows. – ARH
This essay is the special editor’s introduction to a forthcoming symposium in Law & Contemporary Problems that explores the work of theologian Stanley Hauerwas and its implications for law and legal scholarship. Although not well-known in the legal academy, Hauerwas is an important scholar and public intellectual who has written scores of books and hundreds of articles, been named “America’s Best Theologian” by Time Magazine, and delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures. He has arguably “articulated the most coherent and influential political theology in and for the North American context” and has been “at the forefront of major transformations in theology” including virtue ethics, the role of narrative and community, and understandings of medicine and illness. The inattention to Hauerwas in legal scholarship is particularly odd given that he has written for decades about issues central to thelaw: violence, liberalism, bioethics, theories of disability, theories of interpretation, capital punishment, just war theory, reconciliation, public reason, patriotism, euthanasia, abortion, and religious freedom, to name only a few of the more obvious connections. And the general lack of familiarity with Hauerwas by legal scholars (even among many of those who write in the area of “law and religion”) has contributed to a growing divide. Read more
Liveblogging Forum 2000: Religion in Prague
I’m writing this week from Prague, where I’m participating in the Forum 2000 Conference, convened annually by Vaclav Havel. This year’s theme is “Democracy and the Rule of Law.” The conference begins today, but I had the occasion this weekend to chat with Petr Mucha, the Project Coordinator for Forum 2000’s Interfaith Dialogue, which brings together scholars and religious leaders from around the world.
Mucha was kind enough to give me his analysis of religion in the Czech Republic today. He confirmed the conventional wisdom that the Czech Republic is one of the most secular places in Europe (given how secular Europe is, that’s saying something). I asked why that is so. Mucha said that the story is a complicated one, but, as is so often the case, it has largely to do with history. Centuries of religious warfare on Czech soil – Prague, history buffs will recall, was the site of the famous defenestration (below) that started the Thirty Years War, which in turn led
to the Westphalian state system and the principle of cuius regio, eius religio –left a distinct distrust of institutional religion. As a result of the war, Protestantism was more or less defeated in the Czech lands; the Catholic Church became identified with the Hapsburg Empire that suppressed Czech nationalism. During the Communist period, religion never became a rallying point against the state (though dissident priests were involved in the resistance), a situation that differs dramatically from neighboring Poland, where the Catholic Church formed a strong element of national identity.
Mucha believes that is it antipathy for organized religion, not spirituality as such, that characterizes the view of religion in Czech society today. Indeed, according to him, it’s not even correct to characterize the situation in terms of antipathy. Most Czechs are simply indifferent about religion; they don’t think about it much one way or the other. – MLM
Movsesian to Participate in Next Week’s Forum 2000 Conference
CLR Director Professor Mark L. Movsesian will participate in the fifteenth annual Forum 2000 Conference, to be held from October 9-11, 2011, in Prague. Convened under the auspices of Vaclav Havel, the conference brings together global leaders from politics, academia, religion, business and civil society. This year’s theme is “Democracy and the Rule of Law.” Confirmed speakers include Havel, Joseph Stiglitz, Elie Wiesel, Hernando de Soto, Vartan Gregorian and Mikheil Saakashvili. Professor Movsesian will participate in two panels, “Religion, Ethics and Law,” and “Religious and Secular Law.” The program is here.
Liveblogging Tonight’s Ministerial Exemption/Hosanna-Tabor Discussion
Tonight at St. John’s, CLR co-sponsored a panel on Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, scheduled for oral argument tomorrow at
the Supreme Court. The case concerns whether a teacher at a religious school, who was also an ordained minister and performed several religious functions, can sue the school for unjust termination and retaliation under the terms of the Americans With Disabilities Act. After Dean Michael Simons (right) opened the conference, Professor Marc DeGirolami gave historical background on the origins of church-state independence and the ministerial exemption. Professor DeGirolami (below) explained that the ministerial exemption is intended to safeguard 
religious autonomy as well as several other values of religious liberty, but that important state values compete against these interests. Professor Mark Movsesian addressed the underlying policies of the ministerial exemption, including the protection of religious worship as a communal activity and the need for institutions that can offset state power. Professor David Gregory, Director of the St. John’s Center for Labor and Employment Law, addressed the issue in the employment law context. And Peter J. Johnson, Jr., President of Leahey & Johnson, P.C., discussed whether the decision to hire and fire church employees should be made by the state or left to religious institutions. –JKH & YAH
Ministerial Exemption/Hosanna-Tabor Discussion Today at St. John’s
Just a reminder that if you are around today at 5:30, please swing by the atrium, where CLR and the Catholic Law Student Society at St. John’s University School of Law will co-host an event devoted to Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, which is on for oral argument tomorrow.
I will be talking about the idea of church-state “independence” and the ways in which this might or might not be the same as church-state separation, as well as the case itself and the doctrine of the ministerial exemption (I prefer exemption to exception — exemption evoking what I consider to be the preferable free exercise jurisprudence pre-Smith, of which the ME forms a natural part). There will then be a period of questions, discussants to include my colleagues David Gregory and Mark Movsesian as well as Mr. Peter J. Johnson, Jr., president of Leahy & Johnson, P.C.
After the event, I’ll post some thoughts here. — MOD
Lectures at Kellogg College (Oxford)
The Centre for the Study of Religion and Public Life at Kellogg College (Oxford) has announced two upcoming lectures. On October 12, the Rev. Canon Dr. Vincent Strudwick will speak on “God and the Big Society,” and on November 7, Prof. Joseph Prudhomme (Washington College) will speak on “Teaching the Bible in State-Supported Schools.” For details, please contact Kellogg College. — MLM
Lecture: Levinson on Constitutional Faith at Touro
On October 10, Professor Sanford Levinson will deliver the inaugural lecture in what looks like a wonderful lecture series at the Jewish Law Institute at Touro Law Center, directed by my friend, Sam Levine. Professor Levinson will speak about his well-known book, Constitutional Faith, which has been reissued with a new afterword by Levinson, as noted here. — MOD
The John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at WUSTL
Washington University, St. Louis, recently established the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, directed by Marie Griffith (formerly of the Harvard Divinity School), which studies the role of religion and politics in American society and, among other things, “convenes public conferences and lectures to address local, state, and national issues related to religion and politics.” Take a look, and note a couple of interesting upcoming lectures on the center’s events pages by Kevin Schultz (Illinois), on the friendship of Norman Mailer and William F. Buckley, Jr., and William Inboden (UT), on Reinhold Niebuhr, Religious Liberty, and World War II. — MOD