From Silver to Gold: The Next Twenty-Five Years in Law and Religion
Emory Law School’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion is putting on an amazing conference about the next twenty-five years in law & religion, scheduled for October 24-26, 2007.
Here’s a summary of what the conference organizers, Professors John Witte and Frank Alexander, have set as the goals for the conference:
Looking Forward
To celebrate its silver anniversary, the Center for
the Study of Law and Religion is asking two dozen distinguished
scholars to apply their prophetic voices to this area of study. These
distinguished colleagues will anticipate and articulate the hardest
questions of law and religion to be faced during the next 25 years, and
they will formulate and illustrate how these questions might be best
approached and answered. They will share their thoughts in a series of
keynotes, lectures, and panel discussions during our October
conference, which will also feature many of their major publications.
Their work will address the themes most central to
our study during the past quarter-century, themes we believe will
remain critical to study in the years ahead:
• Religious liberty, human rights, and the relations of religions and states;
• Sex, marriage, and family life; and
• Christian, Jewish, and Islamic legal studies.
And here is a link to the conference website, including a pdf of the brochure with agenda and speakers.
I’m just happy my paper is scheduled to be delivered early, so that I can concenrate on everyone else’s paper with no worries!
Sorry to bring this up at this late date, but did we ever find out what the Age of Accusation (I believe it was) was in the other conference you mentioned?
Alas, Judge Noonan didn’t deliver that paper after all,but did another one on cooperation with evil and judges and the death penalty.
I’ll try to remember to ask him the next time I see him.
Cathy,
The goals of this marriage are doubtless laudatory. Is there any data on results. What makes democracy great is that it insists on laws being observed by all regardless of status. No question money still tips the balance in the hands of the haves.
In our country the usurpation of the law has been disturbing. The Supreme Court did not follow the law on the 2000 election and the Bush administration has flouted or delayed the law at will.
The Roman Curia virtually invalidated the collegiality of bishops though lip service from Rome is abundant.
Internationally the Bush people have ignored the Geneva Convention and practically declared that the mighty make the laws.
Banks once were limited on the amount of interest they can charge. Now they are openly trying to get people to miss their payments so they can raise the interest rates. Info America, a data collection agency has openly and flagrantly marketed their data on older Americans as “gullible” “buying kind” and other descriptions which clearly say “You can rob these people easily.” ETC. etc.
I love learning like you. But should you not be weeping rather than rejoicing?
Is there a regression going on?
Bill, I’m not sure what the problem is. I agree that we academics can get so caught up in our own academic discussions that we don’t pay attention to the problems around us.
But I don’t see this as a problem with this conference, if that’s what you’re getting at. What I think is the real insight of the organizers is that they are encouraging people to look forward, to tackle the tasks still left, rather than to celebrate the past and to rest on one’s laurels. I hope that all the issues you raise will be discussed by one or another of the participants.
Cathy,
I don’t see a problem at all with the conference nor do I object to your pleasure in enjoying. Just raising questions. And I agree with Jesus that Laws were made for wo/men not vice versa.
I understand that politicians will vary in their interpretation of law.
But when the Geneva convention is ignored by our own govt. and the presidency is decided on merely political grounds, is not this a crisis in law? Or merely in law enforcement?
Congratulations to Cathy Kaveny fro having her paper accepted.
Thanks. I think the idea of something like this is to step back, review the past, and move toward the future. I’m going to try to use the three roles of prophet, priest, and king (found already in the Old Testament and ascribed to Christ in the New) to try to make some distinctions about the proper role of religion in the public square. My hunch: Lots of wanna-be prophets–lots of wanna-be kings. Not enough priestliness.
It’s an indirect way of addressing some of Bill’s concerns, but I hope it does a spot of good, at least.