Participant, ‘The Quest for Legitimacy: Actors, Audiences and Aspirations’, 2017 APSA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, August 31-September 3 (I)

Topics include:

  • New Perspectives on Montesquieu
  • The Crisis of Constitutional Democracy
  • American Public Philosophy in the Age of Trump
  • On the Compatibility of Natural Law and Natural Rights
  • Author Meets Critics: Alexander Tsesis’s “Constitutional Ethos”
  • Liberalism in Crisis
  • Challenges to the Rule of Law
  • The Future of Conservatism
  • Constitution Making in Religiously Divided Societies

See for more information about the program: http://web.apsanet.org/apsa2017/.

See also:

Press Release: ‘Twelve ILS seed money grants for frontier research at Leiden Law School’

Participant, ‘Great Transformations: Political Science and the Big Questions of Our Time’, 2016 APSA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, September 1-4

Presenter and Discussant, ICON-S Conference ‘Courts, Power, Public Law’, University of Copenhagen, 5-7 July 2017

Looking forward to presenting next week on ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ “constitutional morality” in the religious domain’. The paper forms part of a panel on ‘Judicialisation of Human Rights Law and Policy: A Vehicle for Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights?’

The description of this panel reads as follows:

‘The panel introduces the Leiden Research Group ‘Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a Pluralist World’. Though judicialisation is in itself not a new phenomenon, in the context of today’s globalizing world and the increasing interaction between legal systems, judicialisation is taking on entirely new dimensions and is giving rise to new and complex issues. This is especially true in the field of fundamental rights. At first sight, this judicialisation in the area of human rights seems to be a positive development that furthers the effective protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the international regional and domestic level. However, judicialisation also raises a number of issues that need to be addressed, such as the democratic basis of law-making and separation of powers. Against this background, judicialisation as a means to further fundamental rights protection is very much in need of new and innovative research concerning its meaning workings and impact. Three elements merit particular attention during the panel: a.Conceptualization of judicialisation in the area of human rights; b.Judicialisation in relation to substantive areas of human rights; c.Potential and limitations of judicialisation for the effective protection of fundamental rights.’

My second paper presentation in Copenhagen is titled ‘In Defense of the Classical Liberal Conception Regarding Religious Freedom’, and will take place during a panel on ‘The Separation of Civil and Religious Powers’.

You can read the abstract of the paper here:

‘Leading U.S. scholar of constitutional interpretation Michael Paulsen has developed an interesting theory of religious freedom called ‘The Priority of God’. Paulsen distinguishes, first of all, a liberal conception of religious freedom, according to which it is widely assumed that religious truth exists in a society and the state is tolerant towards the various faith and other traditions. The U.S. however, has developed in the direction of a modern conception of religious freedom, which no longer recognises religious truth although the state remains tolerant. Moreover, still according to Paulsen, several European countries have adopted a postmodern conception of religious freedom. This conception does not just no longer recognise religious truth, but also implies a considerably less tolerant state as secularism becomes the established ‘religion’. This view paradoxically resembles the preliberal stance of religious intolerance out of the conviction that religious truth exists. In response to such developments and in light of the meeting’s general theme with special attention to the role of courts in achieving this, the proposed paper will make a case for the classical liberal position with respect to religious freedom. In light of the current religious diversity in society, this position still appears to be most conducive to safeguarding the position of religious minorities in public life in the increasingly secular, majoritarian contexts of Western liberal democracies.’

Finally, I will serve as discussant for Mathew John’s paper on ‘Framing Religion in Constitutional Power: A View from Indian Constitutional Law’ during the latter panel. Mathew John received his Ph.D. at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2012. Since that year he has been working as an Associate Professor at the Jindal Global Law School Sonipat. Since January 2017 Ph.D. Mathew John is Fellow at the Käte Hamburger Center for Advanced Study in the Humanities ‘Law as Culture’.

For the full program of the ICON-S Conference, see: https://icon-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ICON-S-Conference-2017-Programme.pdf.

See also:

Upcoming Speaking Engagement: 2017 ICON∙S Conference on ‘Courts, Power, and Public Law’, Copenhagen, July 5-7;

Press Release: ‘Hans-Martien ten Napel has book published “Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom. To Be Fully Human”’.

 

Participant, Acton University, June 20-23 2017, Grand Rapids, Michigan (I)

Source: CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=240138

This week I will be attending the 2017 Acton University Conference, at DeVos Place, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Acton University ‘is a unique, four-day exploration of the intellectual foundations of a free society. Guided by a distinguished, international faculty, Acton University is an opportunity to deepen your knowledge and integrate philosophy, theology, business, development – with sound, market based, economics.’

It is organized by the Acton Institute, ‘a think-tank whose mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles’.

Topics dealt with include:

Thomas Jefferson v. Alexander Hamilton

The Inspiration of the Declaration: What Calvin Coolidge’s Views on Government and Faith Tell Us Today

John Locke’s Philosophy of Liberalism

Edmund Burke and the Origins of Modern Conservatism

Alexis de Tocqueville: Does Liberty Follow from Democracy?

Democracy and Development

Natural Law and Human Flourishing

“Post-Consensus” Culture and Natural Law

Religious Liberty: The Dawn of the First Amendment

The Religious Problem with Religious Freedom

Marriage and Religious Liberty

How to Understand and Critique Secularism

Presenters will be, among others:

Ryan Anderson, Ph.D., William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy, The Heritage Foundation

Hunter Baker, J.D., Ph.D., University Fellow and Associate Professor of Political Science, Union University

The Honorable Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Lenore Ealy, Ph.D., President, The Philanthropic Enterprise, Inc.

Kenneth Grasso, Ph.D., Professor and Chair of Political Science, Texas State University

Carrie Gress, Ph.D., Author and Public Intellectual

Robert Joustra, Ph.D., Director of the Centre for Christian Scholarship, Redeemer University College

Daniel Mark, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, Villanova University, and Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)

Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

Svetlana Papazov, D.Min., Lead Pastor, Real Life Church; CEO & Founder, Real Life Center for Entrepreneurial and Leadership Excellence

John Pinheiro, Ph.D., Professor of History and Founding Director of Catholic Studies, Aquinas College

Amity Shlaes, Presidential Scholar, The King’s College.

Sources, and more informationActon UniversityActon Institute.

See alsoUpcoming Speaking Engagement: Symposium The Federalist Papers, Brussel, 20 april 2017

Bernie Sanders, Tim Farron, and the regime change which has taken place within liberalism

In my new book on Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom. To Be Fully Human (Routledge, 2017), I note how partly under the influence of the social and cultural revolution of the 1960s, liberalism has arguably developed from a means of managing diversity in the direction of an ideological agenda of its own. Illustrative of this development is that for certain scholars it has now become a question mark if, and to what extent, religion should be tolerated at all within a liberal democracy.

For more information on the book, go here:

Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom. To Be Fully Human.

See also:

Press Release: ‘Hans-Martien ten Napel has book published “Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom. To Be Fully Human”’.

 

 

New Book: ‘The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation’ (2017)

cloister-2041063_1280

‘In a radical new vision for the future of Christianity, NYT bestselling author and conservative columnist Rod Dreher calls on American Christians to prepare for the coming Dark Age by embracing an ancient Christian way of life. (…)

In The Benedict Option, Dreher calls on traditional Christians to learn from the example of St. Benedict of Nursia, a sixth-century monk who turned from the chaos and decadence of the collapsing Roman Empire, and found a new way to live out the faith in community. For five difficult centuries, Benedict’s monks kept the faith alive through the Dark Ages, and prepared the way for the rebirth of civilization. What do ordinary 21st century Christians — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox — have to learn from the teaching and example of this great spiritual father? That they must read the signs of the times, abandon hope for a political solution to our civilization’s problems, and turn their attention to creating resilient spiritual centers that can survive the coming storm.’

See for Dreher’s forthcoming book: https://www.amazon.com/Benedict-Option-Strategy-Christians-Post-Christian/dp/0735213291

In my own forthcoming book, I write:

I should like to stress that, just like this book does not intend to polarise unnecessarily in the direction of the new critics of religious freedom, it does not want to suggest that authors subscribing to the idea of the benedict option do not have a point either.

On the other hand, it is also possible to discern a link between the new critics of religious freedom and theologians and others advocating the benedict option, in the sense that representatives of both groups sometimes appear to reject liberalism altogether. It is submitted here, however, that there remains reason for Christianity to continue its constructive, yet critical, engagement with liberalism. In fact, this is precisely what the current study aims to do.

This is the eigth post in a new series introducing my forthcoming book on Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom. To Be Fully Human (Routledge, 2017).

For the first seven posts, please see:

R.R. Reno on ‘Islam and America’

Michael Wear’s Reclaiming Hope (2017): ‘Learn How the Seeds of the Trump Presidency Were Sown in the Obama White House’

Major New Report by the National Secular Society: Rethinking Religion and Belief in Public Life

Symposium on Christian Democracy and America: ‘Can Christian Democracy Be America’s Next European Import?’

Journalist Ben Judah, Author of This is London (2016): ‘I Found Faith Everywhere’

The Washington Post on Why Religious Freedom Could Become the Major Religion Story of 2017

Book on Constitutionalism, Democracy and Religious Freedom. To Be Fully Human (Routledge) now available for pre-order

 

 

Paper Presentation during Journal of Law, Religion & State International Conference on ‘The Rule of Law – Religious Perspectives’, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 20-22 November 2016

logo260x260Enthumbnail_photo1thumbnail_photo2

For the program of the conference, see:

The call for papers for the conference can be found here:

http://www.ssrn.com/update/lsn/lsnann/ann16021.html.

The original paper proposal which I submitted, read as follows:

Christianity, Liberalism, and the Rule of Law

During the last decade or so the discipline of constitutional law has changed considerably. It has become more comparative, interdisciplinary and theoretical. What has not happened yet, however, is that constitutional lawyers have become more (openly) aware of their philosophical presuppositions. Thus, it is still commonplace for central concepts of the discipline, such as the rule of law, to be treated as if they do not at least partly have their historical roots in religions like Christianity, or as if such religions currently no longer have anything to contribute to these concepts.

This is remarkable, given that for example Michel Rosenfeld has had to concede ‘that there is no consensus on what “the rule of law” stands for, even if it is fairly clear what it stands against. An important part of the problem is that “the rule of law” is an “essentially contestable concept,” with both descriptive and prescriptive content over which there is a lack of widespread agreement.’

In light of the above, the proposed paper will depart from the idea that the concept of the rule of law is somehow intimately connected with Western liberal tradition. As Michael W. McConnell has argued, the history of liberalism in turn goes back further than the Enlightenment of the 18th century. It is probably more accurate to regard the 16th century Reformation as having given rise to liberalism, with its emphasis on the idea of individual conscience.

McConnell has also elaborated upon the similarities between some of the core doctrines of liberalism and particular Christian theological principles. Of these different connections, the one between the notion of limited government and the idea of the separation of church and state will be singled out, i.e. libertas ecclesiae or the ‘freedom of the church’. As McConnell puts it, ‘[i]n this view, religious freedom comes into being not as a result of ontological individualism but as a result of the jurisdictional separation between these two sets of authorities. (…) While theological in its origin, the two-kingdoms idea lent powerful support to a more general liberal theory of government. The separation of church from state is the most powerful possible refutation of the notion that the political sphere is omnicompetent – that it has rightful authority over all of life. If the state does not have power over the church, it follows that the power of the state is limited.’

The proposed paper will argue that this prescriptive meaning ascribed to the concept of rule of law by Christianity takes on a renewed relevance at a time when sovereignty claims by religious institutions are increasingly regarded by their critics as incompatible with the idea of state sovereignty being the only legitimate source of sovereignty. Thus, it is unfortunately presented as if a clear choice will need to be made between the jurisdictional approach to religious freedom and the modern liberal view that sees sovereignty within the liberal democratic state as essentially monistic in nature.

Participant, ‘Great Transformations: Political Science and the Big Questions of Our Time’, 2016 APSA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, September 1-4

APSA Federalist

Among the panels I attended were:

‘Is The Federalist Relevant to 21st Century Concerns’, a roundtable inspired by Sanford Levinson’s book An Argument Open to All: Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century (2015), with Ran Hirschl, Sanford Levinson, Kim Lane Scheppele a.o.;

‘1996: A Good Year for Deliberative Theory, 20 Years Later’, with Amy Gutmann a.o.; and

‘Carrese’s “Democracy in Moderation: Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Liberalism”‘, with Paul O. Carrese, Aurelian Craiutu, a.o.

For more information on the program, see: http://community.apsanet.org/annualmeeting/home.