I suggested in class today that looking at judicial restraint from a different perspective would help us see it as a more comprehensive and capable theory of adjudication. In order to do this, we need to reject to common conceptions of judicial restraint-
1. Judicial restraint is literally the opposite of judicial activism.
2. Judicial restraint always defers to the will of the majority via the executive or legislative branches of government.
I think different conceptions of judicial restraint are merely fragmented in-articulations of treating law's primary function of protecting the democratic process- and I think the best prototype for the judicial restraint I am defining is Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Holmes exhibits classic restraint in his dissent in Lochner, refusing to endorse a given economic theory. However, he became a famous advocate for free speech protection; his dissent in Abrams v. US protected free speech by actively rebuking the power of congress through the Espionage Act. Some see Holmes' judicial restraint become inconsistent when looking at his free speech opinions. I see his opinions as embracing a more robust version of judicial restraint.
Holmes' jurisprudence is not a restraint from the will of the majority; his restraint lies in keeping his judicial power from infringing upon the democratic process.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
WR: Two Steps Towards Religious Tolerance
We talked today about how literary treatment of religious doctrine would lead to the elimination of intolerant activities from extremist groups. With that being said, I think that step, if possible, is very far away. Here are two key concepts that I do think can be/are being popularized in contemporary religious communities, and can produce a step towards a decrease in religious intolerance.
Religious Pluralism: While it is a fact of reality, that numerous religions exist, the belief that they all have a place in the world does not. One thing we discussed, in Islam especially, was that Muhammad was the prophet that was chosen to bring the Arabic peoples their own religious text. They did not even think of attempting to convert Christians or Jews, as they already had their own text. Embracing religious pluralism requires theologians to give up the power struggle of the big monotheistic religions that was fostered especially during colonial imperialism in Europe.
As the Bhagavad-Gita states, "All paths, Arjuna, lead to me." Perhaps accepting that all religions lead to God can help followers of all religions coexist together, and eliminate the need for evangelical mission work or conflict fueled by dogmatic mandates.
A Medium of Reason: Dogmatism, in Christianity especially, is held in fairly high esteem. Creating a medium of public reason, as the only way in which to project political views upon others, would be another step towards tolerance. While many different people have many different opinions on religious dogma, I think relagating dogmatic views to one's private moral compass would do a lot do decrease the polarizing nature of religious dogma, in American politics especially.
Religious Pluralism: While it is a fact of reality, that numerous religions exist, the belief that they all have a place in the world does not. One thing we discussed, in Islam especially, was that Muhammad was the prophet that was chosen to bring the Arabic peoples their own religious text. They did not even think of attempting to convert Christians or Jews, as they already had their own text. Embracing religious pluralism requires theologians to give up the power struggle of the big monotheistic religions that was fostered especially during colonial imperialism in Europe.
As the Bhagavad-Gita states, "All paths, Arjuna, lead to me." Perhaps accepting that all religions lead to God can help followers of all religions coexist together, and eliminate the need for evangelical mission work or conflict fueled by dogmatic mandates.
A Medium of Reason: Dogmatism, in Christianity especially, is held in fairly high esteem. Creating a medium of public reason, as the only way in which to project political views upon others, would be another step towards tolerance. While many different people have many different opinions on religious dogma, I think relagating dogmatic views to one's private moral compass would do a lot do decrease the polarizing nature of religious dogma, in American politics especially.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)