Religious Law Schools
This article on a religiously oriented law school has caused some interesting commentary in the blogosphere. Chris, at Dagger in Hand, has posted the best analysis I have seen of this so far. Highlight:
1) Don't these schools merely represent the rise of what one might call "Critical Christian Studies" (hereinafter "CCS"), just as we have long had critical race and critical gender studies? Like all crits, these people subject the law to radical criticism from the perspective of a given set of values, and assert that because the current system of legal decisionmaking gives insufficient weight to those values, the resulting "rule of law" lacks legitimacy. I think it's fair to say with regard to any of the "crit" schools of thought, that the more strongly a judicial candidate adheres to it, the less likely he is to feel morally bound to apply established legal rules where that would lead to results his ideology deems unjust. I think, therefore, that to be consistent on this score you would have to say that anyone who is "highly inclined to view the law through the prism of critical race theory" should be regarded as being at least as unfit to be a judge as one who views it "through the prism of Christian dogma." Do you disagreeI believe that their must be a moral standard that is higher than the law of the land. It is what we use to determine if our laws are correct. Their are differing views as to what the source of this higher standard is, some view morality as being source in a particular religion, others from the human intellect or natural law. Whatever you believe to be the source of moral principals though, it is worth remembering that we are all human and our moral judgments and interpretations will fail. That being the case, it is useful to foster a wide variety of views in our society, to allow us to test one interpretation against another. I believe that people of good will are likely to arrive at similar moral conclusions regardless of what they perceive as the source of morality, but often a divergent viewpoint can enlighten us as to blindspots in our moral view.
posted by Dave Justus | 11/24/2004 09:31:00 AM
3 Comments:
"I believe that their must be a moral standard that is higher than the law of the land. It is what we use to determine if our laws are correct. Their are differing views as to what the source of this higher standard is, some view morality as being source in a particular religion, others from the human intellect or natural law."
All bases covered, but one.
The law is made through the system of government. In our countries, this system of government is subject to periodic review by the electorate.
There is a difference, however and for the moment at least, between our two nations.
In my country the impingement and interference of religion directly into the governmental processes has not yet gained a "majority" foothold. We have one party represented in parliament which denies its religious fondation despite having amalgamated with a smaller "Christian Union" Party some years back. We have another new-born party with its foundations firmly in the pews of a charismatic, fundamentalist Christian sect. NZ also has the unusual example of a (long-standing) Christian sect in the form of the Ratana Church pledging its support and encouraging its members to vote for a very secular, left wing party. Its influence has been estimated at perhaps 3% of the total vote.
The US, following this last election, seems to be in a half-way house. There is no direct promotion or control of the majority party from a specific religious group. There is however direct and overt appeal to the politically active sections of the Church, intended to foster a mutual relationship between Church and Government. The next four years will be interesting at the very least to see how that relationship develops, and how much success the "Christian Right Fundamentalists" have in gaining control of the government.
The other end of the scale is found elsewhere.
There are nations which have both Church and Government established as single functions. Yes, they even have democratic elections!! But instead of a candidates worth to the party being measured in dollars contributed to the cause it is his merit as a cleric that is critical to his selection as a candidate.
Look to Iran as an example, India less so, but the most prominent was Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Is this where the US is going?
The U.S. is a long, long way from being a theocracy. It is unlikely to even go as far that direction as we were a few years ago.
Basic freedoms can be threatened by the left as much as by the right. I believe that in this country currently the left poses more of a threat than the right does in that regard. Some people will obviously disagree with me.
That being said, I think our basic freedoms are intact and unlikely to be taken away by either side in the forseeable future.
Time will tell.
I just hope that the realisation is not too late for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home