Agenda: Religious Perspectives on the Rule of Law: Group #2
Agenda: Religious Perspectives on the Rule of Law: Group #2
Recommended Citation 0
0 Thi s Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The F ordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The F ordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information , please contact
-
RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES ON THE RULE
LAW
OF
Group #2
I. Religious perspectives on the Rule of Law require
reflection on the meaning and implications of both
religion and Rule of Law. As will be evident from the
agenda which follows, we opt for an inclusive
definition of religions (beyond Jewish, Christian, Muslim
perspectives) which share a respect for their own
principles or laws and rule of law along with the rule
of law in the secular legal system. Both religions and
secular law strive to serve ideals of morality, fairness
and justice. Most often, when religious and secular law
concur in these goals there is consensus that the Rule
of Law is beneficial. We seek an agenda which
promotes not only this concurrence but which also
promotes pluralism and includes religious traditions
and principles that do not articulate legal systems.
II. In order to address the agenda which follows, we
recommend the following research questions:
A. Is the law just? Does the law have moral
content? Is the pursuit of justice an aspiration in
the legal profession or any other human
institution, including religion?
B. If justice is an over-arching goal of both legal
practice and religion, should there be some
interdependence between law and religion?
Whether this is partnership or cooperation or
opposition depends upon the circumstance.
C. Through investigation of various religious
traditions, search for both common and differing ideas
of justice, e.g., economic justice.
I. Agenda for discussion and teaching in law schools and
theology schools and their various constituencies:
A. Teaching Pluralism in Legal Settings
B.
1. As a first step, law schools must teach about
legal dimensions of religions. Many law
schools currently offer courses in Jewish law,
Muslim law, and canon law. In India, e.g.,
lawyers learn about the personal laws of each
of the various religions of India. It is
recommended that the teachers be sympathetic and
positive to the religious principles they are
presenting within the general norms of
scholarship.
2. Pluralism within the legal context of the
United States must account for the protection
of minorities and the problems of
majoritarianism. How do we allow for those views that
have not been accommodated? When
majoritarianism is imposed, the communities upon
which it is imposed must be consulted and
respected.
3. Create consensus building process for more
inclusive pluralism in United States:
a. Discussion of the questions: when is there
too much pluralism? and what are the
definitions and parameters of the
pluralism being advocated?
b. Internal discourse: prompt community to
re-examine its values and norms. These
questions arise partly as the result of
internal demands and partly due to
external demands placed upon the community.
c. Cross-culturaldialogue: promoting
consensus among the various religious
perspectives about the rule of law. Promote
understanding and mutual respect.
d. While we cannot expect the legal field to
address all of these concerns, we can bring
these issues to law schools, theology
schools and religious communities to
implement them.
Teaching Pluralism in Religious Settings
1. Is pluralism a religious value? Is it in the
interests of this country for theology schools
to promote pluralism? Could pluralism be
structured as separate community systems or
could we have one system inclusive of all the
different religious perspectives?
C.
2. Teaching about other religions in theology
schools and other religious settings.
3. Inter-faith dialogue: promoting understanding
among the various religious perspectives.
4. Internal discourse: create consensus building
process for pluralism. Prompt community to
re-examine its values and norms. These
questions arise partly as the result of internal
demands and partly due to external demands
placed upon the community.
Bridging the Gap:
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") as a
way of legally constituting communal religious
authority as an alternative source of justice.
ADR in Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and other
religious communities.
2. Can we expand this model? What is the role
of lawyers in this expansion?
3. Can we research and recommend other
alternatives which respect religious adjudication?
Notes & Observations