Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:21:21.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil Disobedience: Reflections on the Contribution of James Luther Adams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Milton R. Konvitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

James Luther Adams was famous for his pioneering work in religion and public life, religion and society. His interests embraced economics, public policy, contemporary culture, civil liberties, and church law. His wide-ranging mind at times compellingly focused on issues in civil law as well. I say “compellingly” advisedly, for Adams was essentially a Protestant theologian who had a central concern with the work and influence of Luther, so it was natural and inevitable that his interest would flow from theology of law to the wider subject of law and religion.

Adams' study of an issue was often characterized by certain intellectual qualities. He tried to include almost all aspects of the question; he was not satisfied, as courts at times are, with seeing only a single set of facts and answering a question that is limited only to the facts before him. He could see other sets of facts, and asked, what about them? This approach naturally forced him to look for an organizing principle, an all-embracing concept or set of concepts. First, then, he tried to be comprehensive in his examination; and secondly, he tried to be principled in his analysis and thinking.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , 1995 , pp. 9 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Froude, James Anthony, 1 Short Studies on Great Subjects 72–3 (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1885)Google Scholar.

2. New State Ice Co. v Liebmann, 285 US 262 (1932).

3. Weems v United States 217 US 349, 373 (1910).

4. Adams, James Luther, Civil Disobedience: Its Occasions and Limits in Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W., eds, Political and Legal Obligation 293 (Atherton Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

5. Id at 293.

6. Id at 294.

7. Id.

8. Id.

9. Id at 294-95.

10. Id at 294 n 1.

11. Id.

12. Id at 296.

13. Id.

14. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943).

15. Fischer, Louis, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi 202 (Harper & Brothers, 1950)Google Scholar.

16. Id at 204.

17. Id.

18. Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972).

19. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943)Google Scholar.

20. Deut 8:3.

21. Mark 8:36.

22. Goldman v Weinberger, 475 US 503 (1986). See also Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith, 494 US 872 (1990) (Native American peyote case).

23. Goldman, 475 US at 507Google Scholar.

24. Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub L No 103-141, 107 Stat 1488 (1993), codified at 42 USC § 200bb.

25. 10 Philo of Alexandria 121–73 (Harvard U Press, Colson, F. H., trans, 1962)Google Scholar.

26. Id.

27. Josephus, , 2 The Jewish War 184–203, 401–03 (Harvard U Press, 1927)Google Scholar. See also Konvitz, Milton R., Conscience and Civil Disobedience in the Jewish Tradition, in Polner, M and Goodman, N., eds, The Challenge of Shalom 174 (New Society Publishers, 1994)Google Scholar; and Konvitz, Milton R., Judaism and the American Idea 91 (Cornell U Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

28. Eccl 1:10.

29. The First Book of Maccabees 18–19 (Harper & Bros, Tedesche, Sidney, trans, 1950)Google Scholar.

30. The history of the Hasidim and the Maccabees is related in the First and Second Books of Maccabees.

31. Chambers, Raymond Wilson, Thomas More 336 (U of Michigan Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

32. Id.

33. Id.

34. Id at 336-37.

35. Id at 343.

36. Id at 349.

37. Id at 337.

38. Id.

39. Garner v Louisiana, 368 US 157 (1961).

40. Taylor v Louisiana, 370 US 154 (1962).