Law, Truth, and Freedom

Continuing the discussion I started earlier this week on pluralism and public justice, I'll move to my second proposition.

Human beings ought to be free to pursue what is good unhindered by state-sponsored barriers.  As a result, “plural”—conflicting—visions of the Good will co-exist and interact in society.

This seems compatible with a Christian view that holds—as a fact, not an opinion or a personal value (see Thursday’s post)—that the Creator God and His Son are owed our love and worship, and that coercion de-natures love and worship. So while politics and religion are perhaps inseparable, freedom of worship and robust religious liberty are possible.

(Note here the stark difference in commitments to religious liberty in Western societies—rooted in Christian thinking—and those rooted in Islam).

Yet the fact remains that the law itself makes truth claims, and civil institutions must choose between conflicting visions of the Good, the nature of the human person, the nature and purpose of law, and a wide variety of other foundational presuppositions which reflect—and require—moral knowledge.

What is the purpose of punishment?

Why compensate victims and on what grounds?

What is a judge?

What does it mean for a state to “do justice”?

Different answers to these simple—but foundational—questions result in widely divergent practices, laws, and even institutions.

Even on basic presuppositions, we are faced with plural conceptions of the Good, and the choices that must be made in this regard in areas of public justice are certainly within the authority of the civil government.

Some resources on this topic:

Edwin S. Corwin, The Higher LawBackground of American Constitutional Law (1955)

Michael Cromartie, ed., Caesar’sCoin Revisited: Christians and the Limits of Government (1996)

James Madison, Memorial andRemonstrance

John Courtney Murray, We HoldThese Truths (1960)

Craig A. Stern, Things Not Nice:An Essay on Civil Government (1997)

Craig A. Stern, Crime, MoralLuck, and the Sermon on the Mount

Truth, Justice, & Pluralism at FLAG 2013

Last month, I was privileged to be a part of the "Faith and Law Around the Globe" conference and convocation in Hong Kong. There were more than 150 lawyers and a good handful of law students in attendance from more than 30 countries, including Egypt, South Korea, Australia, Moldova, and the United States.

Thanks to the work of Cru's General Counsel's office, which planned and executed the conference, the conference was a great success. Both Advocates International and the faculty of law at the University of Hong Kong participated in providing programming.

In addition to my role as the emcee of the conference, I was invited to present a short paper at the academic conference at the University of Hong Kong University, "In Quest of Truth of Justice: The Role of Law and Religion in Pluralist Societies."  Thanks to Professor Benny Tai for the kind invitation and the excellent panels.  I hope to lay out some of the content of my presentation and the rest of the panels over the next few weeks, and I'll start today with an overview of my presentation on "Truth, Justice, and Pluralism."

By way of overview, here are the five propositions around which the argument of my paper was was built:

1. We are mistaken if we believe that "pluralism" means that there is such a thing as a purely secular society, where religious neutrality reigns.

2. Second, human beings ought to be free to pursue what is good, unhindered by state-sponsored barriers. This assumes that "plural"-- and sometimes conflicting-- visions of the Good will and must co-exist and interact in any given society.

3. Jesus is King over the whole world, even in the realm of public law and civil justice in every society.

4. Human justice is partial in a fallen world.

5. Finally, a robust public justice is not possible without the Church alongside the state, proclaiming truth.

I'll flesh these out, and comment on some of the other ideas presented in the panels, over the next few days.