Showing papers in "Journal of Church and State in 2000"
47 citations
27 citations
20 citations
16 citations
14 citations
13 citations
10 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, Mahmood Monshipouri's essay, "Islam and Human Rights in the Age of Globalization," in Islam Encountering Globalization, ed. Ali Mohammadi (London; Bookextra, 2000) was defivered at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Northeast Political Science Association and International Studies Association-Northeast, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 11-13 November 1999.
Abstract: • MAHMOOD MONSHIPOURI (B.A., Teacher's Training University, Tehran, Iran; M.A., Allamah Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran; Ph.D., University of Georgia) is professor and chair of political science at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut. He is author of Islamism, Secularism, and Human Rights in the Middle East and Democratization, Liberali zation, and Human Rights in the Third World. His articles have appeared in Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Ethics and International Affairs, Journal of Church and State, The Muslim World, Journal of Third World Studies, Middle East Policy, and the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Special interests include Middle East politics, ethics in foreign policy, human rights and democracy in the Third World. His articfes have appeared in the Pennsylvania Journal of Business and Economics, The Journal of Resource Management and Technology, and the International Journal of Commerce and Management, among others. Special interests include global marketing, strategic planning, and interdisci plinary business interface. REZA MOTAMENI (B.S., College of Mass Communication, Tehran, Iran; M.S., West Coast University; M.A., Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School; Ph.D., The University of Georgia) is professor of marketing at California State University, Fresno, California. This essay was defivered at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Northeast Political Science Association and International Studies Association-Northeast, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 11-13 November 1999. Comments by Craig N. Murphy and Mehdi Mozaffari on the earlier draft are gratefully acknowledged. Some of the themes and discussions here are further elaborated in Mahmood Monshipouri's essay, "Islam and Human Rights in the Age of Globalization," in Islam Encountering Globalization, ed. Ali Mohammadi (London; Bookextra, 2000) (forthcoming).
8 citations
TL;DR: In the last four decades, the churches emerged as the only formidable opposition to the state as discussed by the authors and became one of the significant factors in the ending of apartheid in South Africa and the demise of other forms of repressive governance in the rest of Africa.
Abstract: Guy Hermet observed that in political systems characterized by an "authoritarian exercise of power and . . . refusal to implement a suffi cient and generalized participation of the citizen in the political system . . . religious organizations are the only ones capable of offering host structures, leadership, and means of expression distinct from those controlled by the power dominating oligarchy."1 This has been the case in sub-Saharan Africa in the last four decades. As governance degener ated to authoritarian rule, churches emerged, in most cases, as the only formidable opposition to the state.2 Therefore, churches became one of the significant factors in the ending of apartheid in South Africa and the demise of other forms of repressive governance in the rest of Africa.
7 citations
7 citations
TL;DR: The Catch-22 dilemma is a classic dilemma captured by Joseph Heller and his anti-heroes in the movie version of "Catch-22" as discussed by the authors, where what is given with one order is taken away with another, in a way that every woman facing an abortion can under stand.
Abstract: Like the hapless Yossarian and his fellow GI's in the closing days of World War II, women facing abortion regulations face a frustrating and often humiliating "Catch-22"1 The movie version of the novel made the phrase an unforgettable and telling part of the American vocabu lary Joseph Heller movingly portrayed the trap of the permission/de nial syndrome—what is given with one order is taken away with another—in a way that every woman facing an abortion can under stand Recent US Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion have left women facing the classic dilemma captured so memorably by Hel ler's anti-heroes The dilemma goes to the heart of First Amendment concerns regarding abortion and public policy For years, two arguments about religious liberty have formed a sig nificant part of the abortion debate The first—that public policy should not be based upon narrowly-construed sectarian perspectives— reflects the concern that First Amendment protections be safeguarded by policymakers The second—that no group should seek to impose its own moral/theological beliefs upon others who hold differing beliefs regarded as equally personal and sacred—requests that religious com munities and/or leaders be faithful to the social contract of tolerance
TL;DR: The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to limit government from legislating or otherwise acting on any matter "re specting an establishment of religion" as mentioned in this paper, which is the role of the Establishment Clause.
Abstract: Th e purpose of the Establishment Clause is not to safeguard indi vidual religious rights. That is the role of the Free Exercise Clause, indeed its singular role. The purpose of the Establishment Clause, rather, is as a structural restraint on governmental power. Because of its structural character, the task of the Establishment Clause is to limit government from legislating or otherwise acting on any matter "re specting an establishment of religion."1 The powers that fall within the scope of the foregoing clause (denied to government, hence within the sole province of religion) and the powers outside this clause (hence, authority vested in civil government) await elaboration below.
TL;DR: In this paper, the United States Senate deleted from a bill an amend ment, co-sponsored by Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and Republican Robert Packwood of Oregon, which would have provided federal tuition tax credits for parents of non-public school children.
Abstract: was "firmly committed to conducting a systematic and continuing search for constitutionally acceptable methods of providing aid to par ents whose children attend nonsegregated private schools." In part be cause of this openness to nonpublic school aid, Carter received 57 percent of the Catholic vote in his narrow election victory over incum bent Republican President Gerald Ford. However, in August 1978, by a vote of 57-41, the United States Senate deleted from a bill an amend ment, co-sponsored by Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and Republican Robert Packwood of Oregon, which would have provided federal tuition tax credits for parents of nonpublic schoolchil dren. President Carter had led the successful opposition to this legislation.1 In October 1980, Republican Party presidential candidate Ronald Reagan reminded the Chief Administrators of Catholic Education of Carter's campaign promise. "Not only did Mr. Carter refuse to help parents [of private and parochial elementary and secondary school pupils]," said Reagan, "but he played a major role in defeating the tui tion tax credit bill when it was before the Senate." Quoting his party's platform, Reagan pledged, "Next year, a Republican White House will assist, not sabotage, congressional efforts to enact tuition tax relief into law." In part because of his openness to nonpublic school aid, Reagan
TL;DR: For example, Tocqueville's Democracy in America as discussed by the authors argued that religious belief is essential for the preservation of American life in the 1800s, and he also attempted to characterize the proper nature and role of the religion that can pre serve democracy.
Abstract: Ihose who claim that religion plays an important role in demo cratic political orders must, in order to provide a compelling argument, define the proper role and nature of religion within democracy. For example, is it essential that religious belief is sincere in order to "re deem" democracy, or will an asserted, strategic (and perhaps insincere) belief be sufficient? Also, is it essential that religious belief be univer sal or widespread in order to be effective? Can there be a distinction between the religious belief of political leaders and the religious belief of the masses? These difficult, though intriguing, questions have a prominent place in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Amid his flowing description of American life in the 1800s, Tocqueville maintained that religion is essential for democracy. He also attempted to characterize the proper nature and role of the religion that can pre serve democracy. In doing so, he highlighted both strategic and sin cere elements of religious belief. In spite of the prominent place that Tocqueville assigns to religion, it is not always clear how to make sense of Tocqueville's diverse, sepa rated, and paradoxical comments on religion and democracy. He speaks both of a political incentive to promote religion, and a religious incentive to avoid connection with the state. He describes individuals who need truth in religion living in a society that is (and ought to be) unconcerned with theological truth. Furthermore, Tocqueville does not explicitly present his own attitude toward religion, so it is difficult
TL;DR: The back-of-the-bus metaphor was coined by Ralph Reed, a founder and former head of the Christian Coalition as discussed by the authors, to refer to the system of segregation in the South that attempted to gate African-Americans to second-class citizenship and all efforts to deny citizens basic rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
Abstract: Lawyers and legal advocacy groups for the religious right are en gaged in a vigorous if not entirely intentional assault on the constitu tionally protected status of religion. The rallying cry of the effort is "end religious discrimination now!" and the stated goal is to give reli gion a level playing field with secular groups. This, it is hoped, will allow religious entities to receive funding and other government bene fits allowed to similarly situated non-religious organizations.1 These groups use language and metaphors borrowed from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to paint the picture that religious per sons are experiencing the same kind of discrimination today as was ex perienced by ethnic minorities prior to the 1960s. Ralph Reed, a founder and former head of the Christian Coalition, writes, "The term 'back of the bus' has come into wide use in our language. It refers not only to the system of segregation in the South that attempted to rele gate African-Americans to second-class citizenship, but to all efforts to deny citizens basic rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. . . .
TL;DR: For the past decades arguments have been made for the separa tion of Jews and Palestinians into two states as discussed by the authors, based on strategic, practi cal, and moral considerations, and have been framed in terms of the rights of the indigenous people, Palestini ans, and rights of a persecuted people, Jews.
Abstract: For the past decades arguments have been made for the separa tion of Jews and Palestinians into two states. Based on strategic, practi cal, and moral considerations these arguments have been supported by Jews and Palestinians across a moderate to liberal spectrum and have been framed in terms of the rights of the indigenous people, Palestini ans, and the rights of a persecuted people, Jews.1 Of course, the two-state solution has always been more complicated than the arguments advanced on its behalf and the last decade has made such a solution impossible. The Oslo process, begun by Yitzhak Rabin and consolidated by Benjamin Netanyahu, has brought the fol lowing reality into focus: Israel now extends from Tel Aviv to the Jor dan River with millions of Palestinians within that state. There are two
TL;DR: The authors examined the nature of political opposition on the part of Chris tian ecclessiastical bodies in the twentieth century and showed that no church can compromise with the state when its "mission" is at stake: those factors which are minimally essential for its survival.
Abstract: Examining the nature of political opposition on the part of Chris tian ecclessiastical bodies in the twentieth century demonstrates that while churches have adapted to a variety of political systems, no church can compromise with the state when its "mission" is at stake: those factors which are minimally essential for its survival. These would in clude the liberty of priests, nuns, and other clerics to carry out their sacerdotal tasks, the preservation under church control of its facilities, control of the contents of its own theology, and the ability to enforce adherence to the core sexual-marital ethics of the religious body. While everything else may be open to negotiation—as the case of Lu theran Church policy under Bishop Zoltan Kaldy in socialist Hungary makes clear1—when a state infringes on these core interests, church resistance is sharp, as the Nazis discovered in 1937 when Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical, "Mit Brennender Sorge." The pontiff condemned the regime for the establishment of the German Christian Movement with its neo-pagan trappings and racist ideology, the wholesale arrest of Catholic priests, and the closure of Catholic schools, and declared: Whoever raises race or nation or state or state form or the agents of state authority or other values of human communal life—which within the terrestrial order have an essential and honorable place—to the highest norm of all, taking it out of the