The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Christianity and equity
John Witte and Rafael Domingo are coediting the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Christianity and the Law. One of the chapters will be on "Christianity and Equity," and my colleague Paul Miller and are writing it. There's a lot of terrain to cover--starting with Aristotle (yes, we know he's pre-Christian, but also formative for the later tradition), Roman law, the New Testament, scholastic theology, canon law, the Magisterial Reformation, and the English Court of Chancery. If you're interested in the ways the classical and Christian sources influenced the equity tradition, then you'll want to read it. If this is the sort of thing you like, you will like it.
Here's the link to our current draft.
The two implications we focus on are thinking of equity not just as a matter of public virtue, but also as a matter of personal virtue (for judges, lawyers, and litigants). And the value of holding on to the idea of conscience in equity. On that latter point we say this:
All this is clear from equity's institutional history and doctrinal development. Even in contemporary doctrine one finds numerous indicia of concern for conscience, including in concepts of good faith, oppression, clean hands, unconscionability, and undue influence. And yet, even though in each of these lines of doctrine there remains a connection between equity and conscience, that connection is now kept at arms-length. Rarely is it explicitly acknowledged, much less explained or elaborated. Toward conscience, judges adopt a posture of detachment.
One unfortunate effect has been the present calcification of equity. Many lawyers may point to what has been done in the name of equity, but cannot really inhabit it as a living, organic tradition. A willingness to deliberate publicly about the demands of conscience might permit a different and more fruitful perspective. It might encourage thinking about the performance of equity, of equity as something that needs to be done.
This line of thought is consistent with the Getting Into Equity piece that Paul and I recently wrote for the Notre Dame Law Review's federal courts symposium.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I would like to read this book. Does it cover the plagiarism of the common law from the Medieval Catechism, and all the false scholastic doctrines in the Rules of Evidence, of Criminal or of Civil Procedure? These are crap Medieval garbage from a church, and lawless in our secular nation.
In defense of the Medieval Church, it was in their faith that God would read intent, predict the future and prevent accidents, and that Jesus, a fictitious character was the best guide and paragon of proper conduct. That is their faith. These are supernatural powers they attributed to God in accordance with their faiths. At not time did the Church claim men could do that. Only the idiotic lawyer did, to promote rent seeking and to scam the theft of fees.
The Common Law is from the Notebook of Henry of Bratton. Bratton is Brittany. He was a French asshole, not even English. He was a monk, and judge enforcer for that mass murdering thug Edward I. OK. Edward killed 400 Jewish lenders, and banned the Jews from England for 400 years. But he also killed a million Irish, Welsh, Scot peoples. That is who our common law came from. So what does the lawyer scumbag do? He places Edward I's portrait in the Gallery of Great Law Givers in the Congress.
Henry also justified sovereign immunity because Edward spoke with the Voice of God. That is the psychotic origin of sovereign immunity. It did not exist in Germany, where people could sue the Emperor for his debt to them.
The denier, Volokh, expert in the First Amendment, absolutely refuses to acknowledge this history, and its legal implications. The denier Volokh is then infecting hundreds of intelligent, ethical students with this vile, lawless garbage indoctrination.
"Football is from Walter Camp's Massachusetts's Convention's rules which is why touchdowns count for four points, field goals five and forward passes are illegal!"
I have taught a course and offered a CLE class on The Bible and the Environment. My lecture materials are on my website.
I would argue that Christianity has always covered a wide scope, with core doctrinal issues often being resolved by who's left standing. Don't forget, thousands of soldiers died on the battlefield to establish that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. There were early Christians who didn't even believe in the divinity of Christ.
But the real problem with natural law of any stripe is that it's a massive exercise in confirmation bias. Whatever seems right to you is what you see as being natural. Gay sex may feel totally unnatural to people who aren't into it, but for people who are, it's the most natural thing in the world.
I'm not sure Behar is a historical figure.
Is there any historical record of his existence? There were plenty of records and historical accounts in that era, both Roman and Hebrew. Just Semites running their annoying con. Rome was on the verge of the discoveries of the Renaissance. Imagine where we would be without 1000 years of dark ages caused by these Semites.
" it's a massive exercise in confirmation bias."
Yup. All too often way to reify the social conventions one takes for granted.
Holmes on natural law:
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/natural-law/
Christianity has always been fairly catholic...
That last part isn't logical at all, every religion has martyrs and they're not all historically correct, right? People sadly die for nonsense all too commonly.
Kalak, that's not the argument. The human ability to self-deceive is truly breathtaking. The apostles experienced an emotionally powerful event that would have left them open to being persuaded of things that hadn't actually happened, which is actually not an unusual phenomenon. So they wouldn't have to have been lying; they could simply have convinced themselves the resurrection happened.
I myself am agnostic on the question of whether there was an historical Jesus. But "nobody dies for a lie" is manifestly untrue.
You're not addressing my argument at all, just restating yours. Most religions have martyrs absolutely convinced of things like that willing to die or be tortured over it. Are all their claims therefore 'logically' true?
There's a broad consensus that at least a portion of the Josephus references are medieval insertion, and both he and Tacitus were writing long after the time when they could have had any personal knowledge of the situation anyway.
The most persuasive argument for a historical Jesus, in my view, are the details (such as the contrived fashion of associating Jesus with both Bethlehem and Nazareth) that don't seem to serve any point except to shoehorn a real person's known biography to fit prophetic needs.
First of all, "normal" and "natural" mean two different things, and you've conflated them. "Normal" means whatever a majority of the population is doing. "Natural" means what is found in nature. See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/natural Homosexuality isn't normal in the sense that it's not what a majority of the population does, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural. And natural is the one that applies because, duh, we're talking about natural law.
It's not that there are exceptions; it's that your perception of natural colors what you think is natural. If you're not attracted to other guys, then it seems natural to you to not be attracted to other guys. And if you are attracted to other guys, then that seems natural to you. Your own biases inform what you consider to be natural. You've basically made a doctrine out of your own personal preferences.
With homosexuality, the question isn't why so much as why not. Sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive. You could pretty much have all the gay sex you want and still have plenty of sperm left over to procreate. Lots of Roman emperors did exactly that.
Clarifying what? The comment to which you just responded was my first statement on the subject.
When people suffer severe emotional trauma, which the disciples certainly would have done, their subconscious does what it has to do to keep them from going insane. That sometimes includes leading them to believe things that aren't true. This is basic psychology 101. So it takes very little imagination to picture the disciples convincing themselves that Jesus came back from the dead, and then having that belief snowball by playing it off each other. How do you think people get involved in cults? This is not an unusual phenomenon. And once you've convinced yourself, there's no such thing as un-convincing yourself. They would have believed it with the faith of a child to the day they died.
"But he was gone by the points they started getting martyred"
I don't think "martyred" is really a good description of the atrocity that took place at Mt. Carmel. They didn't hold out out of religious motivations, it was because they knew from the revelations about Ruby Ridge that they'd be framed by the feds if they surrendered without the evidence being documented.
If Jesus was an historical figure, I find it hard to believe that there were no contemporary writings about him. The Romans kept meticulous records. If Pilate ever had a trial such as the one described in the Gospels, I'm quite sure it would have made its way into some record or other, especially given the accompanying upheaval.
The problem for that position is that it's not that we have Roman records from that precise era and location, and Jesus isn't mentioned in them. Rather, the records from that area and time are missing. All the contemporaneous Roman records are from different areas, and any records from that location, different times.
Hardly shocking that everything didn't survive 2000 years. The Romans were very good about keeping records, but that doesn't mean all the records they kept are still around. There are holes, and Jesus was in one of them.
K_2,
The problem with your argument is that a great number of Roman records were destroyed or otherwise lost. For instance all the writing of Emperor Claudius were lost or destroyed. Yet we know from contemporary sources that he did write extensively
You guys are talking about 2 different things.
NoJoy Behar was saying that he doubted Jesus even existed. Kalak is saying that is highly unlikely, since the Apostles, for the most, part knew him personally and their experiences were recorded for posterity. And there are other non-biblical corroborations of Jesus' existence.
Krychek is disputing whether the resurrection actually happened, but that is a whole 'nother question.
WTF?
"Krychek is disputing whether the resurrection actually happened, but that is a whole 'nother question."
Uh, no. "I myself am agnostic on the question of whether there was an historical Jesus." doesn't mean that.
Krychek is just saying it's silly to say the logical conclusion of someone dying over a claim is that the claim must then be true. As he rightly says people die over false claims all too commonly.
Ridgeway has it exactly right. This part of the (very interesting to me) thread is people talking past each other.