Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 1 Comment

Religious Law and the Financial Crisis

In this recent interview in L’Express (in French), Gilles Bernheim, the Chief Rabbi of France, makes some points about the relationship between religious law, specifically Talmudic Law, and contemporary economics. Although the Talmud could not imagine today’s financial arrangements, he concedes, it did teach, in the language of its time, that individualism was the worst enemy of communal confidence. According to the Talmudic view, we should place confidence in work, solidarity, and justice, not the “audacity” of rugged individualism “that dares all without concern for others.” The Talmudic worldview, one infers, would help avert crises like the one we’re currently experiencing.

Rabbi Bernheim’s critique of market economics from a religious perspective is quite familiar; it is very similar, for example, to the critique in Catholic Social Thought (another reminder that one should not reflexively link religion with the political right). And the financial crisis we’re living through does reflect reckless behavior by people who should have known better. A sense of responsibility to the community, which a religious worldview might have imparted, might have helped to avert the crisis.

That said, we should avoid being simplistic about things. Of course individualism “that dares all without concern for others” is incompatible with a religious worldview, but egotism like that is inconsistent with sane market economics as well. And in the United States, at least, the housing bubble that led to the Panic of 2008 was caused in part by government programs that encouraged people to purchase homes they could not afford. In other words, the crisis was not caused only by rugged individualism and greed; it was also caused by a misguided egalitarian project that had terrible consequences for everyone, including its supposed beneficiaries. Anyway, the relationship among selfishness, communal solidarity, and financial collapse is a complicated one that the Chief Rabbi more or less slides by. Though perhaps one shouldn’t expect too much from a newspaper interview – or a blog post. – MLM

Posted on by

Galadari on Islamic Finance

Abdulla Galadari (Higher College of Technology; American University in Dubai) has posted Inner Meanings of Islamic Finance: Understanding the Theory Behind All Theories. The abstract follows. –JKH

For many centuries, there have been many interpretations of the rules in Islamic Finance. With the modern banking system, more challenges have arisen throughout the world, especially with globalization. Reasons behind Islamic Finance have been studied within the disciplines of philosophy and ethics of the financial system. However this paper looks into deeper mysteries of Islamic Finance and shows how Islamic Shari‘ah for commerce mirrors how Allah deals with humanity. The longest verse in the Qur’an is known as the verse of the loan (āyat al-dayn) [Qur’an 2:282]. This verse is analyzed to understand how commercial contracts permitted between people is mirroring the commercial contract Allah makes with humanity, according to the Qur’an.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Liveblogging the Religion and Bankruptcy Conference, Part III

This afternoon, I have the pleasure of introducing the conference keynote speaker, Geoffrey Miller of NYU.  Geoff’s talk, “Law and Economics versus Economic Analysis of Law,” distinguishes the former discipline from the latter, using Robert Aumann’s famous economic analysis of Talmudic law as an example.  Geoff argues that the economic analysis of law offers elegance, but that law and economics offers a rich understanding of complex real-world institutions like courts and legal systems.   Taken together, the two disciplines offer “complementary means for obtaining information about the social world.” — MLM

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Liveblogging the Religion and Bankruptcy Conference, Part II

Here for the second panel, which kicks off with Professor Haider Hamoudi’s discussion of why bankruptcy law has been relatively irrelevant to Islamic law, that is, Sharia law.  Hamoudi says: Read more

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Liveblogging the Religion and Bankruptcy Conference, Part I

I am at the St. John’s Religion and Bankruptcy Conference this morning, and I thought to report on some of the papers and discussion going on right now.

The first presentation was by Professor Theresa Radwan of Stetson University School of Law, dealing with the use of tithing to establish the non-dischargeability of debt following the Religious Liberties and Charitable Protection Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  

The issue is whether post-petition tithing can operate to shield the debtor from creditors.  RFRA reinstituted the substantial burden/compelling state interest of Sherbert v. Verner, and the panelists are now talking about whether that test means that the state is appropriately reluctant to judge whether and how the “undue hardship” standard in the discharge of student loan debts interacts with the substantial burden component of RFRA.

Read more

Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 1 Comment

Religious Law and Yesterday’s Election in NY-9

As everyone who follows American politics knows, a special election was held yesterday in New York’s Ninth Congressional District – a stone’s throw from CLR headquarters here at St. John’s – to replace former representative Anthony Weiner (D), who resigned because of a sexting scandal.  For the first time in nearly 90 years, in a district where registered Democrats have a 3-1 advantage, the district went Republican.  In fact, it wasn’t all that close.  Bob Turner, the Republican candidate, beat his Democratic opponent, State Assemblyman David Weprin, by 8 percentage points.

Numerous factors contributed to Turner’s upset victory: the bad economy, voters’ disapproval of President Obama’s job performance, in particular, his perceived toughness on Israel, a serious issue in a district with a large Jewish electorate.  But, over at Mirror of Justice, Robert George notes that religion also helped turn the race, in a way that will interest CLR readers:

In the run up to the election, a group of Orthodox rabbis, most from Brooklyn, but including others, notably Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen, two nationally prominent Orthodox Jewish authorities, published a letter stating that “it is forbidden to fund, support, or vote for David Weprin.”  The reason?  As a member of the New York state legislature, Weprin, despite his Orthodox Jewish beliefs, voted to redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships.  This, the Read more

Posted on by

Einhorn on Jewish Law and the Excavation of Tombs

Talia Einhorn (Tel Aviv University) has posted Israeli Law, Jewish Law and the Archaeological Excavation of Tombs. The abstract follows. –YAH

The paper discusses the conflict in Israel between the public interest in archaeological research and the religious convictions that human remains, once buried, should not be touched. The conflict is exacerbated by urban development, which, in this ancient land, necessitates rescue excavations of tombs, thus bringing the problem to a head. The article examines, first, the rules of Jewish law, which, the author contends, have made it possible to accommodate the interests of the living, and, secondly, the scientific value of the archaeological excavation of tombs, using recent examples as illustrations. The author concludes that Jewish law could be interpreted and applied more flexibly and could then be reconciled with Israeli law. However, even if such a development were not to take place, then, in keeping with democratic values, government officials and the courts would be required to follow the policies established by the legislator, a balance between the conflicting interests having already been embodied in the law.

Posted on by

Einhorn on Jewish Divorce in the International Arena

Talia Einhorn (Tel Aviv University – Faculty of Management) has posted Jewish Divorce in the International Arena. The abstract follows. – ARH

Jewish law, like other religious laws, commands universal application to all Jews. Had all states chosen religious law to apply to marriage and divorce, limping marriages and divorces would have been restricted to persons who are regarded as belonging to several religions (decided from the point of view of that religion), or to none. This would have also been the case had all persons, regardless of the civil law applicable to such matters, adhered to religious laws. However, as long as some states, e.g., Israel, apply religious law to personal status, whereas others apply civil law, limping personal status poses a very real problem. Such conflicts befall also Jews who regard themselves bound not only by the civil laws of their state of habitual residence, but also, by autonomous choice, by Jewish law precepts.

The modern, relatively free movement of persons in the international arena has Read more