Review of Politics最新文献_第3页

Reasonable Accommodation: James Madison and Governmental Noncognizance of Religion 合理调解:詹姆斯·麦迪逊与政府对宗教的不承认

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI: 10.1017/S0034670522000924

Jonathan Ashbach

引用次数: 0

Reply to Muñoz Reply to Muñoz

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI: 10.1017/S0034670523000025

Jonathan Ashbach

{"title":"Reply to Muñoz","authors":"Jonathan Ashbach","doi":"10.1017/S0034670523000025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670523000025","url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful to Vincent Muñoz for his analysis and critique of my argument. It seems to me, however, that the two criticisms offered here fail to connect with the position I advance. Begin with the second and more fundamental point. Muñoz claims my argument is predicated upon redefining the term “jurisdiction” such that “the state’s absence of jurisdiction over subject matter X means the state cannot pass laws that adversely impact X” (351). I am not sure where this definition is coming from, but it is certainly not coming from me. Undoubtedly, governments may pass all manner of laws that negatively impact religion, on Madison’s terms. Madison’s own advocacy of secular state universities, for example, might well have some negative impact on religion by diverting promising candidates from religious institutions. Neither here nor anywhere else in his corpus, to my knowledge, does Madison make adverse impact a test of jurisdiction. What I did say was that government may not rule religious areas of life, either intentionally or unintentionally: “Something stronger than a duty merely to abstain from targeting religion flows naturally from Madison’s claims. Because reserved rights have not been granted to government, for Madison, the more natural implication is not that government may only infringe upon them if it does so unintentionally, but that government may not infringe upon them at all” (339). Government may not require individuals to take or abstain from actions in violation of their right of religious conscience merely out of oversight or because everyone else is required to do the same thing. Yet the legitimacy of such governmental requirements is the acknowledged upshot of Muñoz’s understanding of noncognizance and the Smith decision it supports. Instead, I present evidence that Madison believed government must actively respect the inalienable rights of conscience to the extent feasible. In short, the difference betweenMuñoz and myself is not that I am unfamiliar with his treatment of inalienable rights, as he suggests. As indicated in the passage just quoted, I agree with it and use it to advance my own case. Nor is the issue that we disagree on the meaning of jurisdiction. Muñoz characterizes the true definition well enough: it means that the state “lacks authority","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"85 1","pages":"352 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49529552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Authors’ Response: Liberal Education and the Restless Soul 作者的回应:博雅教育与不安分的灵魂

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI: 10.1017/S0034670523000086

B. Storey, Jenna Silber Storey

{"title":"Authors’ Response: Liberal Education and the Restless Soul","authors":"B. Storey, Jenna Silber Storey","doi":"10.1017/S0034670523000086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670523000086","url":null,"abstract":"We are grateful to the contributors for exemplifying the kind of conversation we hoped Why We Are Restless would inspire. Each embraces the spirit of the book, taking seriously our effort to clarify the Tocquevillean paradox: that citizens of modern liberal democracies are freer and more prosperous than almost anyone in human history, yet are restlessly discontent in ways that unsettle both our individual lives and our capacity for free and orderly politics. We seek to understand the origin and nature of this discontent through the work of Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville—who are likewise concerned with inquietude. Zuckert, Halikias, Yarbrough, and Callanan assess our scholarly work by the high standard of their own penetrating readings of those authors. Their lucid summaries of and objections to our arguments helped clarify our own thoughts. In particular, they prompted further thought about two important questions: first, what it means to write in public about the questions our authors raise; and second, what contribution liberal education can make to ameliorating the problems we describe. Zuckert seeks to offer a more Montaignean reading of Montaigne than our own. We welcome this approach and appreciate her attention to the detail of Montaigne’s text, consideration of his intentions, and defense of his distinctiveness as a thinker. Her central criticism concerns our contention that the search for “unmediated approbation” is a central theme of Montaigne’s thought. We use this term to describe the core of Montaigne’s distinctive understanding of friendship, patterned on his experience with Étienne de La Boétie. We believe that thinking about friendship so understood can be useful for assessing some distinctive social aspirations of modern people. Although Zuckert acknowledges that friendship was important to Montaigne, she writes that after La Boétie’s death “there is no evidence in the Essays or his biography that he actively sought another such friend” (379). Instead, she claims that Montaigne retired to the solitude of his estate and that it is “such a solitary life that he recommends to his readers” (379). She is further concerned that our characterization of the aim of Montaignean","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"85 1","pages":"394 - 403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44318343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Response to Jonathan Ashbach 对Jonathan Ashbach的回应

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI: 10.1017/S0034670523000013

V. P. Muñoz

{"title":"Response to Jonathan Ashbach","authors":"V. P. Muñoz","doi":"10.1017/S0034670523000013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670523000013","url":null,"abstract":"It is satisfying to have one’s work taken seriously by the next generation of scholars. I was pleased to learn in Jonathan Ashbach’s article that I advance “both the most persuasive and the dominant articulation of Madison’s beliefs about religious free exercise in the literature” (329). I was less pleased to read that my interpretation is “mistaken,” “in need of revision,” and “fail[s] to appreciate the implications of social contract theory” (330). Upon review, however, I think my work survives his criticism. I believe that Ashbach makes two errors, which leads him to both misinterpret my scholarship and misunderstand Madison. The issue between us is the proper understanding of Madison’s principle of religious freedom. We focus on the same evidence—primarily, Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance”—and read Madison in the same way, as a natural rights, social compact political thinker. We disagree, however, about what Madison’s fundamental principle is. Starting with a 2003 article, further developed in my first book and a subsequent article, I have advanced a “noncognizance” interpretation, contending that Madison held that the state must remain “blind” to religion and thus cannot classify individuals on account of their religious affiliation for purposes of privilege or penalty. Ashbach finds this mistaken because, he","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"85 1","pages":"349 - 351"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46536520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Gary M. Kelly: The Human Condition in Rousseau's “Essay on the Origin of Languages.” (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2021. Pp. xviii, 242.) 加里·m·凯利:卢梭《论语言的起源》中的人类状况。(刘易斯顿，纽约:埃德温·梅伦，2021年)。第18页，242页。)

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-06-29 DOI: 10.1017/s003467052300013x

Peter Westmoreland

引用次数: 0

Richard Shorten: The Ideology of Political Reactionaries. (New York: Routledge, 2022. Pp. xiii, 270.) 理查德·肖顿：《政治反动派的意识形态》。（纽约：劳特利奇，2022年。第xiii页，270。）

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-06-14 DOI: 10.1017/S0034670523000116

Robert Goodman

引用次数: 0

David Dyzenhaus: The Long Arc of Legality: Hobbes, Kelsen, Hart. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xiv, 443.) 大卫·戴赞豪斯:《法律的长弧》:霍布斯，凯尔森，哈特。(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2022。第14页，443页。)

Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-06-13 DOI: 10.1017/s0034670523000219

M. Rovira