Around the Web This Week

Some interesting law and religion news stories from around the web this week:

Panel Discussion: “Pope Francis: The First Year” (Fordham University School of Law, Oct. 14)

The Institute for Religion, Law and Lawyer’s Work at Fordham University School of Law is hosting an inaugural lecture on its new series, “Pope Francis: the First Year.”  The panel discussion will be held at Fordham Law School on October 14 and RSVPs are required by October 10:

The papacy of Pope Francis has captivated the world. According to Time Magazine’s Nancy Gibbs, “Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. He has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.”
Fordham Law School’s Institute on Religion, Law and Lawyer’s Work is introducing a new series on Pope Francis and his contribution to religious, policy, and legal conversations. On Oct 14, 2014, the inaugural program in the series will focus on Pope Francis’s first year as leader of the Catholics in the world.

Details can be found here.

“Legal Cases, New Religious Movements, and Minority Faiths” (Richardson & Bellanger eds.)

This October, Ashgate Publishing will release “Legal Cases, New Religious Movements, and Minority Faiths,” edited by James T. Richardson (University of Nevada) and François Bellanger (University of Geneva, Switzerland).  The publisher’s description follows:

Legal Cases, New Religious Movements, and Minority FaithsNew religious movements (NRMs) and other minority faiths have regularly been the focus of legal cases around the world in recent decades. This is the first book to focus on important aspects of the relationship of smaller faiths to the societies in which they function by using specific legal cases to examine social control efforts. The legal cases involve group leaders, a groups’ practices or alleged abuses against members and children in the group, legal actions brought by former members or third parties, attacks against such groups by outsiders including even governments, and libel and slander actions brought by religious groups as they seek to defend themselves. These cases are sometimes milestones in the relation between state authorities and religious groups.

Exploring cases in different parts of the world, and assessing the events causing such cases and their consequences, this book offers a practical insight for understanding the relations of NRMs and other minority religions and the law from the perspective of legal cases. Chapters focus on legal, political, and social implications. Including contributions from scholars, legal practitioners, actual or former members, and authorities involved in such cases from various jurisdictions, this book presents an objective approach to understanding why so many legal actions have involved NRMs and other minority faiths in recent years in western societies, and the consequences of those actions for the society and the religious group as well.

“Religion, Nation and Democracy in the South Caucasus” (Agadjanian et al., eds.)

This October, Routledge Press will release “Religion, Nation and Democracy in the South Caucasus” edited by Alexander Agadjanian (Russian State University), Ansgar Jödicke (University of Fribour, Switzerland), and Evert van der Zweerde (Radbout University of Nijmegen, Netherlands).  The publisher’s description follows:

Religion, Nation and Democracy in South CaucasusThis book explores developments in the three major societies of the South Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – focusing especially on religion, historical traditions, national consciousness, and political culture, and on how these factors interact. It outlines how, despite close geographical interlacement, common historical memories and inherited structures, the three countries have deep differences; and it discusses how development in all three nations has differed significantly from the countries’ declared commitments to democratic orientation and European norms and values. The book also considers how external factors and international relations continue to impact on the three countries.

Center Announces New Student Fellows

DSC_3012

L-R: Prof. Marc DeGirolami, Stephanie Cipolla ’16, John Boersma ’15, Prof. Mark Movsesian

As the academic year begins, we’re delighted to announce the appointment of our student fellows for 2014-2015, John Boersma ’15 and Stephanie Cipolla ’16. John and Stephanie have already been helping with the daily Scholarship Roundup posts, but they’ll be taking on other responsibilities as well. We’re glad to have them with us and look forward to the year ahead.

For more information about the new fellows, please click here.

Int’l Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion (Venice, March 2015)

20110724_Venice_Santa_Maria_della_Salute_5159

Nice Place for a Moot Court Competition

Here’s a great opportunity for law students. The Fondazione Studium Generale Marcianum in Venice (above) is hosting a new, international moot court competition on the subject of law and religion. The competition, which will take place in Venice next March, will draw teams of students from American and European law schools:

The goal of the Moot Court Competition is to bring together in Venice, for a limited period of time and in an intensive way (9-11 March 2015), a group of law school students in order to make them discuss a case with professional jurists. The students, coming from European and American Law Schools, will participate as teams. They will deal with a case at the intersection between law and religion, a central issue for the entire world and indeed a crucial theme for the Marcianum.

The initiative will bring together scholars and students of different backgrounds to have them address the very same case from two different standpoints. Some scholars will sit as the Supreme Court of the United States; some as the European Court of Human Rights. Teams will argue the same case before one of the two boards of judges. After a verdict, a roundtable will gather some scholars to debate the case as well as the way the two moot courts have addressed it.

This approach will give the students an opportunity to measure themselves with a case related to fundamental rights, developing reflective and argumentative skills and, at the same time, it will offer them, and the other participants, the occasion to highlight the different cultural points of view of the two Courts, enhancing the comparative perspective.

I’ll serve as one of the judges on the moot American court, along with Professor Bill Kelley of Notre Dame and Judge Richard Sullivan of the Southern District of New York. Professors Louis-Leon Christians (Catholic University of Louvain), Mark Hill (Cardiff University) and Renata Uitz (Central European University Budapest) will make up the European panel. Professor Silvio Ferrari (Milan) and Brett Scharffs (BYU) will serve as keynote speakers.

For details on the competition, as well as entry requirements, please click here.

Web Story on Movsesian Lecture at Lanier Theological Library

For those who are interested, here’s a story about my lecture this month at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, on the human-rights crisis facing Mideast Christians. Once the library posts the video, I’ll link that too. Thanks again to LTL for hosting me!

Cook, “First Amendment Religious Liberties: Supreme Court Decisions and Public Opinion, 1947-2013″

This month, LFB Scholarly Publishing releases “First Amendment Religious Liberties: Supreme Court Decisions and Public Opinion, 1947-2013” by Tracy L. Cook (Central Texas College). The publisher’s description follows:

Cook analyzes the relationship between Supreme Court decisions and public opinion concerning First Amendment religious liberties. Overall, the Court has issued opinions consistent with public opinion in a majority of its decisions dealing with the First Amendment’s religion clauses, with a level of congruence of almost seventy percent when a clear public opinion expression is present. She also provides a new perspective for understanding the long and contentious debate about prayer in public school by identifying an area of agreement between the Court and public opinion that has not received much attention.

“Secularism on the Edge: Rethinking Church-State Relations in the United States, France, and Israel” (Berlinerblau et al., eds.)

In August, Palgrave Macmillan released “Secularism on the Edge: Rethinking Church-State Relations in the United States, France, and Israel” edited by Jacques Berlinerblau (Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University), Sarah Fainberg (Tel Aviv University), and Aurora Nou (graduate student at American University). The publisher’s description follows:

What is secularism, and why does it matter? In an era marked by global religious revival, how do countries navigate the presence of faith in the public square? In this dynamic collection of essays, leading scholars from around the world, including Israeli novelist A.B. Yehoshua and French female rabbi Delphine Horvilleur, examine the condition of church-state relations in three pivotal countries: the United States, France, and Israel. Their analyses are rooted in a wide variety of disciplines, ranging from ethnography and demography to political science, gender studies, theology, and law.

Prominent among the points addressed are the crippling nomenclatural confusions that have so hampered not only secularism as a political ideology, but secularism as an academic construct. This reader-friendly volume also offers a critical and nuanced look at how women are impacted by secular governance. Though secularism is often equated with modernity and progress, including with regard to gender equality, our contributors find that the truth is infinitely more complicated.

Where the Queen Prays in Scotland

crathie2

Crathie Kirk

As everyone knows, Scotland votes tomorrow on whether to remain part of the United Kingdom. In Scotland last Sunday, Queen Elizabeth made a statement most have interpreted as a commentary on the situation. Scots should think very carefully about the future, she said.

I’m sure the Queen meant that Scots should vote “No.” How could she have meant otherwise? What interests me, though, is that she made the statement after services at Crathie Kirk, a parish of the Church of Scotland. In fact, she regularly worships at Crathie Kirk when she’s in Scotland, at her Balmoral estate.

Now, Queen Elizabeth is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Mother Church of the worldwide Anglican communion. The Church of Scotland is not Anglican, but Presbyterian. Relations between the two churches are cordial (though they have not always been so), but the Queen is not a Presbyterian. She’s an Anglican. So why does she regularly worship in the Scottish Kirk? Are there no Church of England parishes near Balmoral? Couldn’t she fly in a vicar from London?

As far as I can tell, this arrangement is one of those historical accommodations that have ripened into custom. The Treaty of Union of 1707 — the treaty Scots may overturn tomorrow — requires the British Monarch to preserve the Church of Scotland. The Monarch takes an oath to that effect upon accession to the throne. Sometimes the Monarch attends meetings of the Church’s General Assembly. Usually she sends a representative.

It’s thus quite natural for British Monarchs to feel that, whatever their official role in the Church of England, they have a place in the Church of Scotland as well. In the nineteenth century, Queen Victoria caused a scandal when she received communion in the Church of Scotland, but she maintained that as the country’s — that is, Scotland’s — Queen, she had every right to do so. Since then, every reigning Monarch has worshiped at Crathie Kirk.

So, there it is. In England, the Monarch is an Anglican; in Scotland, she prays with the Presbyterians. How very British. I mean that in a good way, and I use the term advisedly. After tomorrow, it may mean something else.