Posted on by ddrakeman · 3 Comments

Getting Out of Our Grooves — Part 3: Where Does Religious Liberty Come From?

The canonical view of American religious liberty was set out in Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in the Everson case (1947):  A “large proportion” of the “early settlers of this country . . . came from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches.”  Religious persecution “shocked the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence,” a feeling, he noted “which found expression in the First Amendment.”  Ultimately, the leadership for our national commitment to religious liberty came from Virginia, since Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religion Freedom and the First Amendment “had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection . . . .”

This classic statement of the Jeffersonian origins of the religion clauses basically says that “ideas have consequences.”  And it’s hard to disagree with that principle in the abstract.  But it is also worth looking at some more pragmatic concerns that led Revolutionary America to embrace a greater level of religious freedom.  As discussed in my earlier blog, religious liberty, in addition to being a good idea, can be a useful strategy for governments seeking to expand or consolidate their power.

Scholars have suggested, for example, that the War itself may have had a beneficial trickle down effect on religious liberty.  Most recently, John Ragosta’s Wellspring of Liberty (2010) shows how Virginia’s dissenters, particularly the Baptists and Presbyterians, negotiated for greater religious liberty from the Anglican-dominated state in return for their support of the war effort.

Meanwhile, Charles Hanson’s Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England (1998) shows how events in Massachusetts, where anti-Catholicism had been ingrained for a very long time, led to a “wartime accommodation” of Catholic France.  Hanson’s story touches in part on the oldest endowed university lecture in America, Harvard’s Dudleian Lecture.  Donor Dudley’s carefully drawn will required that, at least once every four years, the distinguished lecturer would be required to address the following topic:  “The detecting and convicting and exposing the idolatry of the Romish Church, their tyranny, usurpations, damnable heresies, fatal errors, abominable superstitions, and other crying wickedness in their high places.”

And so, while New Englanders had blasted the 1774 Quebec Act guarantying Canadian Catholics the “free exercise of religion,” the colonists’ formal alliance with Catholic France in 1788 led to wartime “accommodations,” including far milder Dudleian Lectures during the war years.  Old prejudices tend to die hard, however, and Harvard didn’t look seriously at changing the anti-Catholic focus of the lectures until the end of the 19th century, a move that we may choose to applaud for its liberalness or to criticize for its violation of the principle of upholding donor intent in charitable giving.

Don Drakeman

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami · 1 Comment

Studying Conflict Without Solving It: An Agenda

I participated in a terrific conference yesterday organized by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown. The master of ceremonies, Tom Farr, did a wonderful job of putting interesting panels together. And our own moderator, Tom Banschoff, put a series of provocative questions to our panel. I learned a lot from my good co-panelists, Cathy Kaveny and Mark Rienzi, and was happy to see and listen to many old friends and meet new ones (I am now on the train home with some spotty internet access, and so will forbear from linking to the various places where you can learn about the conference — at some point, a video will be available for those who need a sleep aid).

Our panel’s overarching subject was conflict between religious liberty and other rights. My initial comments had to do with the importance of conflict — not only its inevitability, but indeed (and more controversially), its positive desirability as a reflection of the reality of our respective and very different backgrounds, traditions, and memories, but also as a reflection of our internal struggles to manage the clash of sundry values as to which we each hold strong allegiances.

But I realized — both throughout the day and during the panel itself — that my approach and that of others may be slightly different, and in a way that maybe it would be helpful to spell out. During the conference, there was sometimes mention, by some of the speakers, about the need to “build bridges” or to reach mutual agreements or to “solve” conflicts with those with whom one disagrees. Provided that compromises are undertaken at the right level of particularity, I think these are all very worthy goals. They are important as a matter of practical getting along. They are important as a political and legal matter. And they are important inasmuch as an irenic state of affairs is generally welcome.

But I do not think that bridge-building is the only activity that needs pursuing. There are other projects too. Because of the depth and complexity of the conflicts at issue in many of the contemporary controversies addressed by the conference — indeed, because of the central importance of conflict — it seems to me that some study of the conflicts themselves is worthwhile — a study which would be undertaken without the self-conscious and more specifically practical aim of “solving” them. The project would be simply to understand them, and if that were accomplished, it’d be a good day’s work. It also might be the case that taking the measure of a conflict can be achieved more effectively and more deeply without an underlying impulse or motivation to reach a state of harmony, and without the conviction that harmony must somehow be possible.

Perhaps it might be useful to offer some concrete examples of the beginnings of an agenda for the study of conflict as applicable to some of the specific controversies swirling about today. The list surely is not and is not intended to be complete. The main point of this post is methodological. It is about what projects are worth pursuing.

Read more

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Conference on Christian Persecution

Notwithstanding this weekend’s good news from Iran, the persecution of Christians around the world continues to pose a major human rights problem. This November, the Institute for Church Life at Notre Dame will hold a conference, “Seed of the Church: Telling the Story of Today’s Christian Martyrs,” addressing the issues. Here’s an excerpt from the conference announcement:

It is striking how little attention the secular world pays to this injustice, despite the fact that the persecution of Christians is one of the largest classes of human rights violations in the world today.   The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community estimates that some 100 million Christians are victims of severe persecution.  Yet governments, human rights organizations, the global media, and the western university pay little heed.  For example, of three hundred reports that Human Rights Watch has produced since 2008, only one focuses on a case of Christian persecution. Similarly, despite the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act by the U.S. Congress in 1998, neither U.S. foreign policy nor civil society has ever made the persecution of Christians a high priority.

John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter and CNN, who recently wrote an interesting essay on the subject, will be one of the keynote speakers. Conference details are here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Iran Releases Pastor Accused of Apostasy

Good news from Iran this weekend: the government has released Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani from prison. The Iranian government initially had sentenced Nadarkhani, who converted to Christianity from Islam, to death for the crime of apostasy, but later switched the charges to rape and extortion – charges most people dismissed. In response to pressure from religious-freedom advocates in the West, including the White House, Iran now says the conviction was only for “evangelizing Muslims,” not apostasy, and that Nadarkhani can be released for time served. (H/t: First Things).

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Koppelman and Paulsen at St. John’s on September 27

On September 27, CLR will host a debate, “Religious Liberty in the 2012 Election,” at the St. John’s University Law School campus in Queens, New York. Our two debaters will be Andy Koppelman (Northwestern) and Mike Paulsen (St. Thomas). Both are known to have strong opinions, so the event promises to be a lively and provocative one. If you’re in the neighborhood, please stop by. Details are here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Girl in Pakistani Quran-Burning Case to be Released on Bail

Rimsha Masih, the Pakistani Christian teenager who has been in prison for weeks on blasphemy charges, will be freed on bail to await trial, the Guardian reports. A local mullah had accused Masih, who has Down’s Syndrome, of burning pages from a Quran. This week, however, the mullah’s colleagues accused him of framing Masih by planting incriminating evidence on her as part of a plot to drive Christians from the neighborhood. A senior Muslim cleric subsequently spoke in Masih’s defense and personally guaranteed her safety if the court were to release her. The case has shed light on Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which, detractors claim, is often used as a pretext for settling scores with Christians and other religious minorities. Ali Dayan Hasan, the Pakistani director of Human Rights Watch, says that he hopes the Masih case will lead to re-examination of the law, but other experts have expressed doubt about the possibility of reform. The law enjoys great popular support in Pakistan.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Conference: Catholic Perspectives on Religious Liberty at Georgetown

I’ll be participating in a conference next Thursday, September 13 —  “Catholic Perspectives on Religious Liberty” — organized by Tom Farr and hosted by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University Law Center.  The keynote speaker is Cardinal Donald Wuerl and the balance of the conference is organized in 3 fairly conversational panels, each of which is devoted to a separate topic.  If you are able to come, please stop by and say hi.  More details here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Event: “The Manhattan Declaration Crosses the River”

The Diocese of Brooklyn will host a panel discussion, “The Manhattan Declaration Crosses the River: Support the Preservation of Religious Liberty,” at the St. John’s Queens campus on Thursday, September 20. Speakers include Marjorie Dannenfelser (Susan B. Anthony List), Robert George (Princeton), Alan Sears (ADF), and Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration). Details are here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Upcoming Lectures on Catholic Jurisprudence

For East Coast CLR Forum readers interested in Catholic jurisprudence, here are a couple of events to put on your fall calendar. Next Friday, September 14, Villanova Law School will host the seventh annual Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics, and Culture. This year’s theme is “Living the Catholic Faith in Public Life.” Speakers include Helen Alvaré (George Mason), Gerard Bradley (Notre Dame), Patrick Brennan (Villanova), and Peter Steinfels (Fordham). The following Friday, September 21, the Thomistic Institute NYC will kick off a series at NYU’s Catholic Center, “A Public Right to the Truth: A Series on the Natural Right to Religious Freedom,” with a lecture by Russell Hittinger (Tulsa) on “The Catholic Magisterium and Religious Freedom.” The series will continue throughout the fall. Details are here.