The Case for Religious Constitutions: Comparative Constitutional Law among Buddhists and Other Religious Groups

This article argues that there is body of governing laws appearing widely throughout the global history of religions that warrants classification as constitutions. Like national constitutions, these religious constitutions present themselves as a form of “higher law” that declare the identity of a given a community, organize its structures of governing power, define its foundational norms, and authorize further acts of rulemaking. In this article, I offer an overview of these texts across several traditions and a defense of their importance in the study of comparative constitutional law. I then draw on fieldwork from Sri Lanka to provide a firsthand account of what a modern religious constitution looks like and how it works to govern one of the country’s largest communities of Buddhist monks. I conclude by urging scholars to view religion and constitutional law not as opposing legal domains but, rather, as homologous forms of social ordering that draw upon similar concepts and logics to address common human dilemmas.

Searching for a Soul

The crisis for Christianity in the interwar years was intensified by the crisis in Western civilizations. Universities were to serve the needs of industrial society but also wanted to find meaning in the humanities and the best of the Western heritage. But critics like Carl Becker raised the question of whether humans could find meaning. Ruth Benedict was one who critiqued Western culture for its racism. John Dewey believed Americans could find a secular “common faith.” Chicago’s President Robert Maynard Hutchins presented in The Higher Education in America the most scathing critique. Humane education was undermined by dehumanizing scientific models and by business interests. These issues were sharply debated during the war years. Hutchins, Mortimer Adler, and some religious thinkers such as Pitirim Sorokin and Jacques Maritain argued for higher law either from either religion or metaphysics. John Dewey, Sidney Hook, and others argued for more pragmatic secular approaches.

Electro-education and distance education in the implementation of higher legal education programs: current definitions and issues of legal regulation

The article is devoted to the study of topical issues of the use of e-learning and remote educational technology in the implementation of higher education programs and, in particular, in the training of specialists with higher legal education. During the study, the author identified and refined the prospects of e-education, presented noteworthy arguments justifying the benefits of e-education in comparison with traditional full-time students. The main sources of legal regulation of e-learning of students in higher law schools have been analyzed.

Introduction

This chapter situates Jewish political theology as a discourse developed in the 20th century, mainly by German Jewish thinkers. It sets out the basic differences between this analysis and the discourse on political theology developed by Carl Schmitt, centered on the need for absolute sovereignty to “restrain” disorder and revolutionary upheavals. The chapter argues that Jewish political theology offers an alternative conception of divine sovereignty and its implications for democracy and revolution. Jewish political theology is both republican and anarchic, attached to the idea of a higher law above human sovereignty and to the egalitarian ideal of a politics beyond domination. This chapter presents the two analytical-conceptual guiding-threads of the investigation. The first is concerned with Max Weber’s category of charismatic leadership and the problem of its functioning within a constitutional idea of democratic legitimacy. The second guiding-thread is concerned with the process of secularization. This chapter argues that Jewish political theology reconceives divine providence in order to criticize the assumption of human progress in and through history.

PENGATURAN DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG HAK POLITIK MANTAN TERPIDANA KASUS TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI SEBAGAI CALON ANGGOTA LEGISLATIF PADA PEMILIHAN UMUM TAHUN 2019

General election is a means of democracy that is used to elect people's representatives to sit as legislative members in the MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD. The election was conducted in accordance with Article 2 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The 2019 election was also attended by former convicted corruption cases. This is in accordance with PKPU rules Number 20 of 2018. With this decision, an extra-judicial polemic arises which is appropriate and important to be studied more specifically and academically. The formulation of the problem in this research is, How to regulate the political rights of former convicted corruption cases as legislative candidates in the 2019 general election? What are the implications of regulating the political rights of former convicts of corruption as a candidate for legislative members in the 2019 General Elections on Human Rights? The specification of this research is normative juridical research, which is a form of research that aims to describe the applicable laws and regulations, linked to legal theories and practice of positive law enforcement, which will later be linked to the problems examined in this scientific paper. Based on the results of the analysis, answers can be obtained: 1) The Political Rights Regulation of Former Convicted Corruption Crime Cases as Legislative Candidates in the General Election Year contradicts a higher law because based on the mandate of article 4 paragraph (3) Number 20 of 2018 concerning Election Commission Regulations General as well as article 240 paragraph (1) letter (g) of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. Article 28 letter d of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. 2) Implications of regulating the political rights of former convicted corruption cases as candidates for legislative members in the 2019 general election against human rights, revocation of political rights for convicted corruption cases by human rights law activists (HAM) is of the view that deprivation of political rights is a violation of human rights. This is still debatable, because every sentence is basically a violation of human rights, but the violation is allowed, as long as it is based on the law.