The Collegium Institute invites you to apply for the Spring 2020 Fellowship program in the Legal Humanities. The program welcomes a small group of fellows to participate in six discussion sessions during lunch in ARCH 108. The discussions will be facilitated by academics and professionals in law, history, and philosophy. This inaugural semester of the Fellowship is coordinated by Dr. Michael Breidenbach, the Spring 2020 Faculty Director of the Legal Humanities Program. By the end of the semester, fellows produce a statement of academic findings and/or vocational discernment.
This semester will focus on religious liberty, church-state relations, and the First Amendment. The new Cambridge Companion to the First Amendment and Religious Liberty edited by Michael D. Breidenbach and Owen Anderson will serve as a guide for the topics. Among the questions to be raised are: What is religion, and what is it not? Is religion a special good deserving of legal protection? Should governments promote, to the extent possible, religion generally or a particular religion, even to the exclusion of other religions or non-religion, or should they adhere to a policy of church-state separation? What is legitimate religious dissent, and what kind of loyalty should be required to ensure religious liberty? What does the religion clauses of the First Amendment mean? How has the Supreme Court interpreted them over the centuries? What is the future of religious liberty in America?
The Fellowship meets on Mondays from 12:00pm – 1:00pm in ARCH Building Room 108.
Spring 2020 Fellowship Schedule and Curriculum
February 3 | Foundations of Religion, Philosophy of Law, Religious Exercise
Facilitator: Prof. Janice Chik (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ave Maria University; AY 2019-20 John and Daria Barry Foundation Fellow, University of Pennsylvania)
Reading: Janice Tzuling Chik, "The Philosophical Meaning of Religious Exercise" in The Cambridge Companion to the First Amendment and Religious Liberty
February 17 | Religious Exercise and Establishment in Early America
Facilitator: Dr. Luke Sheahan (Assistant Professor of Political Science, Duquesne University; Senior Affiliate, Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania).
Reading: Glenn Moots, "Religious Exercise and Establishment in Early America" in The Cambridge Companion to First Amendment and Religious Liberty
March 2 | The Historical Contexts of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment
Facilitator: Dr. Sally Gordon (Arlin M. Adams Professor of Constitutional Law and a Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania).
Reading: Chris Beneke, "The Historical Context of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment" in The Cambridge Companion to First Amendment and Religious Liberty
March 16 | Landmark Cases for the Establishment Clause
Facilitator: Mr. David Cortman (Senior Counsel and V.P. for Religious LIberty of the Alliance Defending Freedom).
Reading: Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), and American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019)
March 30 | Landmark Cases for the Free Exercise Clause
Facilitator: Dr. Michael Moreland (Villanova University Professor of Law and Religion Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy)
Reading: Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
April 6 | The Future of Religious Liberty in America
Facilitator: Mr. Ed Mannino (Lawyer and Historian)
Discussion Questions: There will be no assigned reading for this session. Instead, Mr. Mannino asks students to consider the following discussion questions in preparation for the final Legal Humanities seminar:
Does a party claiming a religious justification for her actions need to show that her actions are mandated by her religion and generally accepted by other adherents?
Why should a valid and neutral law applicable to all not be applied to religious freedom claims?
What if a Muslim invokes Sharia law to justify noncompliance with a U.S. law or regulation?
Do photographers and florists have a stronger case for protection than those who rent property?
On a different issue, can a law requiring a woman to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion be upheld under Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Could the Establishment Clause be employed to attack the law?
What might be the "way forward" in one or two major conflicts that reappear in religious liberty cases? Are there some underlying, unresolved jurisprudential problems that need addressing?