As one of the world’s only constitutions to recognize Theravada Buddhism as the state religion yet not include a religious exemption to the universal franchise for its monastic community, Cambodia’s Constitution stands out as an anomaly. This article traces the ways in which the realities of this remarkably inorganic approach to religion—enshrined in Cambodia’s Constitution in 1993, pursuant to a heavily internationalized peace process—have subsequently been shaped by debates occurring within Cambodia’s Buddhist institutions, rather than judicial ones. Drawing on data derived from archival research and a series of ethnographic interviews conducted during 2017 and 2018, I home in on decades-old debates about the voting rights of Cambodian monks to show how individual monks justify their participation in electoral politics through a mixture of both secular and religious arguments. The on-the-ground reality of the extension of the franchise to the Buddhist clergy in Cambodia, in other words, is ultimately shaped by an ongoing contestation within the sangha, with proponents and opponents of a religious exception grounding their arguments simultaneously in constitutional and theological vocabularies. The article sheds light on a singular constitutional arrangement—a unique relationship between religious and state institutions that has so far received relatively little scholarly attention—and highlights an instance of constitutional practice that occurs beyond the reach of both judicial and other state institutions.

A marked feature of the contemporary U.S. constitutional landscape is the campaign by an Evangelical-Catholic coalition against the idea of secularism, understood by this alliance to mean the exclusion of religion from the state and its progressive marginalization from social life. Departing from the tendency to treat this project as a national phenomenon, this article places it within a longer global genealogy of an earlier international Christian ecumenical effort to combat secularism. The triumph of that campaign culminated in the making of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, now considered the paradigmatic international legal provision on religious liberty. Article 18’s protection of the rights to proselytize and convert, I argue, was a product of an impassioned contestation between an ecumenical movement keen on securing the prerogative to spread the gospel to the non-Christian world and a secularism in a strange alliance with Islam in the region that held the greatest promise for the evangelical enterprise—Muslim Africa. In excavating the genealogy of ecumenical thought as it developed a critique of the so-called secularist threat, I recover the delicate links between the contemporary U.S. anti-secular campaign and the earlier ecumenical efforts.

The late congressman John Lewis spent most of his political life engaging Black Power's commitment to economic and political freedom through a political vocabulary that aligned with his deeply held beliefs in nonviolence, human rights activism, and moral faith. The tension between the Black radical left and establishment Black politics dates back to Lewis's clash with elite Black leaders over the content of his prepared address for the 1963 March on Washington. The address provides a glimpse into Lewis's complicated political legacy. The youngest speaker at the March, Lewis faced the daunting task of both representing the political philosophy of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and meeting the expectations of established civil rights leaders. Negotiating the political interests of the organizers of the March alongside the demands of SNCC foreshadowed the congressman's political vocation: a lifetime of civil rights advocacy through a politics of respectability and Black Power's political philosophy of freedom and economic transformation. Lewis's political legacy is complicated; and yet, it was fueled by an unabashed commitment to Black freedom struggles, human rights activism, and racial reconciliation.

In 1995, the German legislature introduced the rule that a woman who terminates her pregnancy in the first trimester, which is illegal, would not be punished if she had previously undergone a legally prescribed counseling session. The counseling session, while oriented toward the protection of unborn life, is also open-ended, respectful of the decision-making right and duty of the pregnant woman. At the request of the pope, the German bishops instructed the existing counseling centers of the Catholic welfare organizations not to issue any written certificates of such counseling, as such certificates could ultimately be used to evade punishment. In order to continue to be able to offer counseling, Catholics, among them Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, founded the association Donum Vitae (Gift of Life), which continues to issue certificates when requested. For the German bishops, the association, founded by Catholics for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is external to the church. But what precisely is Donum Vitae? What does it stand for? Why are assessments of the association divided until this day? The essay examines these questions theologically and legally.

This article captures my personal relationship with Congressman John Lewis, his wife, Lillian, and their son, John-Miles. Readers will discover Congressman Lewis's unique ties with the Jewish community and his lifelong commitment to strengthening Black-Jewish relations. It notes the issues he championed—from voting rights to Israel's security—and includes his own words marching in solidarity with the Jewish community and speaking out for freedom for Soviet Jews.

In the essay “A Christian in the Office of Constitutional Judge,” Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde addresses the dilemma of the Catholic judge who is sworn to apply a secular constitution yet who confesses to a “spirituality [that] knows no separation between the personal-private and the occupational spheres.” Böckenförde faced that dilemma in the 1993 abortion decision of the German Constitutional Court, which—with Böckenförde voting with the majority—held that abortion, while still punishable, allowed exceptions subject to certain conditions and counselling requirements. In this essay, the author situates that issue within the nature of judicial power and the ethical duties of the judge; the jurisdictional constraints that in other jurisdictions are available to avoid normative conflicts; and, finally, the challenges to judicial power when called upon to validate laws that go beyond the traditional punitive approach that merely prohibits and condemns, and that instead use welfare measures to actualize substantive norms taking into account social and historical realities.

The decisionistic strand in Jewish legal philosophy is often neglected by scholars focused on the more common rational explanations for Jewish law. This article brings attention to decisionism in Jewish legal thought by analyzing the legal philosophy of Shneur Zalman of Lyady, the founder of the Habad Hasidic movement. The author uses the legal and political thought of Carl Schmitt—arguably modernity’s most influential decisionist—to help elucidate Shneur Zalman’s decisionistic legal thought and thereby put into sharper focus an otherwise underappreciated current in Jewish legal philosophy.

This essay examines Representative John Lewis's engagement with the 1987 uprising of Cuban immigrant detainees held in Atlanta's federal penitentiary, which occurred near the beginning of Lewis's time in Congress. Cuban prisoners at the penitentiary took control of the institution and detained several hostages in order to forestall their deportation back to Cuba. After the uprising ended, in contrast to other public figures who advocated harsh punitive treatment, Lewis urged mercy and compassion for the prisoners. Lewis's involvement in the story revealed his underlying understanding of human rights, which he connected to his experiences in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This broad conception of human rights shaped his engagement with issues of immigration throughout the remainder of his congressional career, especially during the administration of President Donald Trump. Lewis's engagement with issues of immigration is also especially noteworthy in light of metro Atlanta's emergence as a key site for the settlement of immigrants and refugees from around the world, which continues to shape the politics of the metro area.

As a former diplomat currently engaged in praxis-oriented research and teaching, I examine Böckenförde’s importance in the broad context of the debate on the future of Europe. First, I trace some of Böckenförde’s specific thoughts on the development of the European Union, notably concerning trends that impact on the shared “sense of belonging” that underpins deliberative democracy. Second, accepting Böckenförde’s crucial distinction between the granular provisions of the law and an underlying ethos or sense of direction, I argue that the Böckenförde paradox is strongly supported at the roots of our culture by ancient Greek political thought, in ways that can help us develop our thinking in new directions—involving Aristotelian conceptions of orientation, community (koinōnia), and discernment. Finally, I address the challenges currently facing the European Union, taking as my point of departure President Emmanuel Macron’s evocation of the “contribution which a living Europe can bring to civilisation.” The political thought of Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, illuminated by conceptions of orientation, community, and discernment, can help to prepare us for a future intercultural dialogue in the service of peace.

Women’s political leadership is one of the abiding controversial issues among Muslim scholars. The question of whether a Muslim woman can lead in her country is generally answered negatively by Muslim scholars, but some modern scholars explicitly support women’s political leadership without any restriction. Where the scholars stand on the issue is influenced by their social context. With the intent of examining the interaction between social context and Islamic legal methodologies in fatwās—Isalmic legal opinions—related to women, the author discusses as exemplary texts the fatwās issued by two well-known religious institutions, the Dār al-Iftā’ in Saudi Arabia and the Diyanet in Turkey. The institutions function in different social contexts: Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy that applies Islamic law; Turkey is a democratic country whose legal system is based on a secular law. Through a detailed analysis of the spatio-temporal fatwās regarding women’s political leadership, the author provides insight into the influence of contextual elements during the process of issuing fatwās, suggesting that these differences of opinion among Muslim scholars and religious institutions will continue.

The history and influence of the School of Salamanca is attracting the attention of researchers from very different branches of knowledge and from a very wide variety of countries around the world. Broaching this subject invites one to reflect on both the unity of knowledge and the important role that theology plays in a secularized world. In this short essay, I discuss four recently published works that show the global scope of interest in Spanish Scholasticism in general and the School of Salamanca in particular. The first, The School of Salamanca: A Case of Global Knowledge, was edited by Thomas Duve, Jose Luis Egío, and Christiane Birr in coordination of the Max Planck Institute (2021). The second work, ¿Qué es la Escuela de Salamanca?, was edited by Simona Langella and Rafael Ramis-Barceló (2021). The third work is a recent thematic compendium on Spanish Scholasticism edited by Harald E. Braun, Erik De Bom, and Paolo Astorri (2022). Finally, I discuss David Lantigua’s monograph, Infidels and Empires in a New World Order: Early Modern Spanish Contributions to International Legal Thought (2020).

This essay considers the vexed relationship between belonging and identity. Belonging is not an objective or unreflective association but rather an emotional assertion of attachment. That emotional connection is an indispensable component of identity, which, as Joseph David argues in Kinship, Law and Politics: An Anatomy of Belonging, is a relationship charged with meaning. Accordingly, the distinction between belonging as a privately held sentiment and the politics of belonging overlooks the fact that the emotions associated with belonging define group membership. Belonging is not a private matter but an emotional relationship that shapes social life, reinforces a group’s identity politics, and finds expression in a group’s practices. Analysis of two case studies from ancient Judaism—the writings of Philo of Alexandria and the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls—demonstrates the emotional, social, and discursive dimensions of belonging and the role it plays in producing identity. Belonging is not a stable concept but is rather one that assumes different forms depending on the emotional orientation of the group and the particulars of identity politics. For Philo, belonging reflects a universalistic love for all humanity that helps shape an identity embracing Jewish practice and Greek virtue. By contrast, the Dead Sea sect’s antipathy toward all other Jews requires that a sense of belonging express not only love for fellow sectarians but also hate for all outsiders.

John Lewis's civil rights activism in the 1960s often obscures the fact that he won elective office as a racially moderate politician. Scholars have long noted the efficacy of using deracialized, or racially transcendent, campaign strategies to get elected, despite normative concerns. These strategies were critical to electing Black governors, senators, and even President Obama. However, in the age of Black Lives Matter, some have questioned the continued usefulness of the strategy. Using Rep. Lewis's life as a guide, I examine the ways that some Black politicians continue to use deracialization, even in this racially charged social and political moment, and I explain how younger cohorts of Black politicians challenge this approach. Ultimately, I argue that while deracialization is a contested strategy, its efficacy has not diminished. Rather, Black politicians have expanded the boundaries of what constitutes racially transcendent politics to include consensus issues like voting rights, which while highly racialized, are not likely to induce an erosion of support among non-Black Democratic voters.

Conservative activists and politicians have condemned critical race theory and have supported measures to prohibit teaching the subject in public schools. The anti-critical race theory movement is part of broader social movement activity inspired by the 2020 presidential election. Many conservatives view Donald Trump's defeat as a victory for antiracism. In response, they have portrayed the election as a product of fraud, enacted laws that will make it more difficult for people of color to vote, endorsed measures that would chill antiracist political activism, and banned instruction related to contemporary antiracist theory. These practices have been employed historically in response to antiracism. This history should guide social justice advocates as they analyze the meaning of countermovement activity and build strategies of resistance.

Belonging and the sense of belonging are vital factors of human identity, loyalty, and roles, the expectations we have of ourselves and of one another. The boundaries, social and sexual, that all human societies deploy to protect personal privacy and personal and group dignity are modulated by our sense of belonging and often by a complementary sense of difference. The bonds of affinity and the corresponding sense of belonging that modulate our norms and roles are perhaps most visible in the striking colorations they assume in the eyes of outsiders viewing the mores of traditional societies. But the vital necessity of a sense of shared identity is all the more critical when social identities are fragmented by faction, tribalism, or racism, or when anomie and alienation have sapped the sense of commitment that energizes collaborative efforts in any human group. Few dimensions of personal outlook and awareness are more powerful in communal, legal, or political settings than the sense of belonging, that curiously shared identity by which we bind ourselves and one another to shared goals and values in some version of the sense that we are one.

In a series of cases over the past year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld then struck down COVID-19–related restrictions on worship in various states across the country. Those decisions clarified that, under the Free Exercise Clause, laws burdening religion aren't “generally applicable” when they treat religious conduct less favorably than comparable secular conduct. But they also relied on controversial claims that religious gatherings were comparable to places like grocery stores in their likelihood of spreading the virus. This article offers a different perspective. In addition to the rule about comparators, general applicability also contains a second rule. Where a law requires officials to consider the religious reasons for conduct as a precondition for regulating it, the law isn't generally applicable and ought to be subject to heightened scrutiny. The Court mostly passed over that requirement in the COVID-19 church-closure cases. But rightly understood, it may have provided an alternative path for resolving them—and one that didn't depend on controversial comparisons between churches and shopping centers. Instead, focusing on this second aspect of general applicability would have yielded a commonsense conclusion: where a law or policy grants favored treatment for activities it explicitly deems “essential,” “critical,” or “life-sustaining,” one of those things must be religion, absent compelling reason to the contrary. And understanding the rationale behind that conclusion provides important insights about the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause and several other issues at the heart of the First Amendment.

Joseph E. David’s Kinship, Law and Politics: An Anatomy of Belonging provides an erudite demonstration of how an analytical approach that directs attention to negotiations of belonging in exegetical and legal thinking can yield crucial insight into how social boundaries are defined and defended in throughout human history in a broad array of contexts. Among the examples he brings to illustrate premodern efforts to delineate belonging is Nahmanides’s interpretation of territory based commandments. David shows that Nahmanides made the radical claim that the covenant was firmly linked to the land, so that any people inhabiting the land were obliged to follow it, and complete compliance with divine law could be achieved only in the Land of Israel. This essay examines David’s discussion of Nahmanides’s interpretation of law in the Land of Israel and considers the implications of extending an analysis of conceptions of belonging into other corners of Nahmanides’s career as a commentator, community leader, and teacher.