Re: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
There are elaborate rules of jewish law on the subject of self defense. Basically unlike American. Law they put a premium on the life of the person attacked with doubts resolved in his or her favor even at the expense of the attacker's life. There are obviously different rules when a lesser response will suffice. .this hard line attitude helps explain why many israelis reject ihl insistence that doubts about the availability of a self defense claim be resolved against the claim. I will try to find a written summary Marc stern - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Fri Mar 20 18:10:46 2009 Subject: RE: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise Very interesting, thanks very much! > -Original Message- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Perry Dane > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:18 PM > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise > > Eugene, > > I can't, offhand, help you with precise theological sources, > but you might be interested in an internal debate that occurred at > Calvin College, the very intellectually and religiously serious Dutch > Reformed college in Michigan, when the school administration decided > (after the Virginia Tech tragedy) to issue guns to some members of > the college security force. A group of students got very upset over > the decision, claiming it was unchristian, and the administration > produced a "Theological Explanation for the Use of Force Policy." > > For some account, see, e.g. > > http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/use-of-force.htm > > http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=530 > > http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3713 > > http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/calvin_board_oks_gun_policy_fo.htm l > > I haven't been able to find the explanation theological document that > the college administration drafted in defense of its policy. > > Hope this helps. > > Perry > > > Eugene Volokh wrote: > > I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes > >towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in > >particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that > >(1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense > >or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun > >guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is > >permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between > >nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, > >unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for > >nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). > > *** > Perry Dane > Professor of Law > > Rutgers University > School of Law -- Camden > 217 North Fifth Street > Camden, NJ 08102 > > d...@crab.rutgers.edu > Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ > SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 > > Work: (856) 225-6004 > Fax: (856) 969-7924 > Home: (610) 896-5702 > *** > > > > *** > Perry Dane > Professor of Law > > Rutgers University > School of Law -- Camden > 217 North Fifth Street > Camden, NJ 08102 > > d...@crab.rutgers.edu > Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ > SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 > > Work: (856) 225-6004 > Fax: (856) 969-7924 > Home: (610) 896-5702 > *** > > > ___ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please no
RE: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
Very interesting, thanks very much! > -Original Message- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Perry Dane > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:18 PM > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise > > Eugene, > > I can't, offhand, help you with precise theological sources, > but you might be interested in an internal debate that occurred at > Calvin College, the very intellectually and religiously serious Dutch > Reformed college in Michigan, when the school administration decided > (after the Virginia Tech tragedy) to issue guns to some members of > the college security force. A group of students got very upset over > the decision, claiming it was unchristian, and the administration > produced a "Theological Explanation for the Use of Force Policy." > > For some account, see, e.g. > > http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/use-of-force.htm > > http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=530 > > http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3713 > > http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/calvin_board_oks_gun_policy_fo.htm l > > I haven't been able to find the explanation theological document that > the college administration drafted in defense of its policy. > > Hope this helps. > > Perry > > > Eugene Volokh wrote: > > I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes > >towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in > >particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that > >(1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense > >or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun > >guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is > >permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between > >nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, > >unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for > >nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). > > *** > Perry Dane > Professor of Law > > Rutgers University > School of Law -- Camden > 217 North Fifth Street > Camden, NJ 08102 > > d...@crab.rutgers.edu > Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ > SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 > > Work: (856) 225-6004 > Fax: (856) 969-7924 > Home: (610) 896-5702 > *** > > > > *** > Perry Dane > Professor of Law > > Rutgers University > School of Law -- Camden > 217 North Fifth Street > Camden, NJ 08102 > > d...@crab.rutgers.edu > Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ > SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 > > Work: (856) 225-6004 > Fax: (856) 969-7924 > Home: (610) 896-5702 > *** > > > ___ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
Eugene, I can't, offhand, help you with precise theological sources, but you might be interested in an internal debate that occurred at Calvin College, the very intellectually and religiously serious Dutch Reformed college in Michigan, when the school administration decided (after the Virginia Tech tragedy) to issue guns to some members of the college security force. A group of students got very upset over the decision, claiming it was unchristian, and the administration produced a "Theological Explanation for the Use of Force Policy." For some account, see, e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/use-of-force.htm http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=530 http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3713 http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/calvin_board_oks_gun_policy_fo.html I haven't been able to find the explanation theological document that the college administration drafted in defense of its policy. Hope this helps. Perry Eugene Volokh wrote: > I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes >towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in >particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that >(1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense >or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun >guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is >permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between >nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, >unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for >nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Early Massachusetts Statute
My educated guess is that this statute was only intended to apply to Indians who lived in, or visited, the colonists' settlements. If so, it was probably not much more severe (though probably less defensible) than the restrictions the colonists placed on themselves. I'm even more fascinated, though, by one tidbit in the statute: the reference to banning only "outward worship." This confirms the degree to which the Puritans had, at least in their relations with the Indians, internalized the relatively new ideology that defended religious coercion, not as a means to assure individual salvation, but simply as a tool for guaranteeing social order, political cohesion, protection of others from temptation, etc. Some have argued that this focus on the state's interest in "outward worship" rather than individual salvation contained, if ironically, the seeds of modern conceptions of religious liberty. Consider, in this connection, Elizabeth I's famous statement that she had "no desire to make windows into men's souls." For Elizabeth herself, this statement was entirely consistent with her oppression of the "outward" practice of Catholic worship. Historically, though, it began the slow process of detaching religious commitment from the jurisdiction of the state. (It also began the more normatively complicated process of treating religious faith as merely "private.") I've also found really interesting here Janet Halley, Equivocation and the Legal Conflict Over Religious Identity In Early Modern England, 3 Yale J.L. & Human. 33 (1991), which discusses, among other things, the "Church Papists" of Elizabeth England: Catholics who complied with the law requiring attendance at Anglican services, and understood such attendance as a (practical or even possibly commendable) act of "outward" social duty rather than a violation of their Catholic principles. Another query: How would the Indians have understood the import and implications of this statute (assuming it was actually enforced), particularly given the fact, emphasized by historians of the period, that very few New England Indians, at least in the 17th century, actually converted to Christianity. (Indeed, the evidence suggests that in the early years of the New England colonies, significantly more whites assimilated into native culture and society, than the other way around. That, in fact, might confirm that the statute had more to do with controlling whites than controlling Indians.) Doug Laycock wrote: > Just ran across a 1633 statute that made it a criminal offense for > Indians to worship "their False Gods." I haven't tracked it to an > original source, but James Bradley Thayer has it in a footnote > (attached), so I assume it's reliable. > >The statute applied "in any part of our jurisdiction;" I don't know >if that meant all the territory claimed by Massachusetts Bay colony, >or only white towns and farms. It seems likely that practical >enforcement capacity was limited to areas of white settlement, so >maybe this is not quite as stunningly outrageous as it appeared on >first reading. Still, it's pretty remarkable. Maybe they were no >longer dependent on the Indians to feed them by this time. *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Early Massachusetts Statute
My educated guess is that this statute was only intended to apply to Indians who lived in, or visited, the colonists' settlements. If so, it was probably not much more severe (though probably less defensible) than the restrictions the colonists placed on themselves. I'm even more fascinated, though, by one tidbit in the statute: the reference to banning only "outward worship." This confirms the degree to which the Puritans had, at least in their relations with the Indians, internalized the relatively new ideology that defended religious coercion, not as a means to assure individual salvation, but simply as a tool for guaranteeing social order, political cohesion, protection of others from temptation, etc. Some have argued that this focus on the state's interest in "outward worship" rather than individual salvation contained, if ironically, the seeds of modern conceptions of religious liberty. Consider, in this connection, Elizabeth I's famous statement that she had "no desire to make windows into men's souls." For Elizabeth herself, this statement was entirely consistent with her oppression of the "outward" practice of Catholic worship. Historically, though, it began the slow process of detaching religious commitment from the jurisdiction of the state. (It also began the more normatively complicated process of treating religious faith as merely "private.") I've also found really interesting here Janet Halley, Equivocation and the Legal Conflict Over Religious Identity In Early Modern England, 3 Yale J.L. & Human. 33 (1991), which discusses, among other things, the "Church Papists" of Elizabeth England: Catholics who complied with the law requiring attendance at Anglican services, and understood such attendance as a (practical or even possibly commendable) act of "outward" social duty rather than a violation of their Catholic principles. Another query: How would the Indians have understood the import and implications of this statute (assuming it was actually enforced), particularly given the fact, emphasized by historians of the period, that very few New England Indians, at least in the 17th century, actually converted to Christianity. (Indeed, the evidence suggests that in the early years of the New England colonies, significantly more whites assimilated into native culture and society, than the other way around. That, in fact, might confirm that the statute had more to do with controlling whites than controlling Indians.) Doug Laycock wrote: Just ran across a 1633 statute that made it a criminal offense for Indians to worship "their False Gods." I haven't tracked it to an original source, but James Bradley Thayer has it in a footnote (attached), so I assume it's reliable. The statute applied "in any part of our jurisdiction;" I don't know if that meant all the territory claimed by Massachusetts Bay colony, or only white towns and farms. It seems likely that practical enforcement capacity was limited to areas of white settlement, so maybe this is not quite as stunningly outrageous as it appeared on first reading. Still, it's pretty remarkable. Maybe they were no longer dependent on the Indians to feed them by this time. *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
