Egalitarian Age Research Articles

GENDER EQUALITY AND RELIGIOUS LAW: THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AS RABBIS IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT AS A CASE STUDY

AbstractThis article explores one tumultuous encounter between a religious legal tradition and the modern principle of equality—an encounter that also has the potential to shed light on a much wider cluster of questions. The author tracks the ways that the responsa written by prominent Conservative rabbis on the subject of female rabbinic ordination and gender equality implicitly (but unambiguously) reflect the push toward increased equality that weighed on the movement's trajectory, showing that the debate about the ordination of female rabbis reveals two principal trends in Conservative legal rulings, which differ in their responses to the challenge of egalitarianism and their visions of the law, and notes two outlier responsa that cannot be neatly classified within either trend. The author then examines the deep-seated historical, ideational, and sociological processes concurrent with the rise of what some have called the egalitarian age, which have produced these diverging responses and visions, and it determines an appropriate framework to understand them. The author shows that the fight for increased gender equality is situated within an intricate social context that imbues it with meaning and shapes its outcomes and modes of expression. In concluding, the author suggests applying the insights gained in the course of the analysis to other circumstances in which gender egalitarianism clashes with religious tradition. The framework by which the ordination of women in the Conservative movement is analyzed also proves useful, mutatis mutandis, in understanding and comparing the responses of other faith communities as they deal with challenges caused by the egalitarian age.

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age, written by Nelson Tebbe

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age, written by Nelson Tebbe

Reasons and Religion

It is a privilege, and also a great pleasure, to receive these eight thoughtful reviews of Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age. Two themes seem to run through the reviews. First, there is curiosity about the role of reasons in the book’s method. Several reviewers wonder whether reason-giving can help to resolve tensions between traditional religion and civil rights law. Second, there is interest in the concept of religion that the book employs, and in particular whether it serves to replicate power imbalances between majority and minority faiths. I share the intuitions driving both themes and to a considerable degree I would like to simply adopt them here. Yet I also will explain why neither inquiry undermines the main argument of the book. Finally, I will suggest that the two themes interact in interesting ways. In the methodological section of the book, I respond to legal scholars who have been arguing not only that decision-making on questions of free exercise and nonestablishment is often unreasoned, but more profoundly that such decisions are necessarily patternless, conclusory, or ad hoc (210 n1). Taking that view seriously, I contend that reasons can be given for particular conclusions in this area of constitutional law and politics, and that interpretive decisions may be justified or warranted. Reasons do some work on this understanding, and that is enough to defeat the strongest forms of skepticism.

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age, by NELSON TEBBE

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age, by NELSON TEBBE

An Appraisal of Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age by Nelson Tebbe: Eight Commentaries and Tebbe’s Response

An Appraisal of Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age by Nelson Tebbe: Eight Commentaries and Tebbe’s Response

Let’s Be Reasonable!

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age is a very well-written book, which addresses the contemporary conflict between religious freedom and equality law, in particular regarding LGBT rights. Through the analysis of major decisions by the Supreme Court in cases concerning LGBT rights, Nelson Tebbe proposes a specific method to solve potential conflicts with religious freedom. This is a fascinating read for lawmakers but also for those who are new to these issues—and particularly for people like me, who either belong to a discipline other than law or are merely unfamiliar with the American legal tradition. How can Americans conciliate an increasingly necessary protection from discrimination to enjoy the full spectrum of civil rights and at the same time protect their idea of religious freedom? I deliberately insist on the pronoun “their,” because, although this is a book that pretends to establish a general rule to dissipate conflicts, it is based on a particular legal culture, and its recipes cannot be exported or discussed except for comparative purposes. The examples, analyses, and discussions are a nice portrayal of American culture concerning these matters today, which makes it a useful tool for everyone, though in different ways.

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age. By Nelson Tebbe

Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age. By Nelson Tebbe

Sage, humanist, and physician to all men: Keats and Romantic Conceptualisations of the Poet

In the aftermath of the French Revolution which failed to give birth to a hoped-for new egalitarian age in Britain, radically-minded poets were forced to confront the question of what their role was in a post-Revolutionary age. This article examines Keats's distinctive contribution to the debates of his day by exploring his crafting of the figure of the poet in Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion. What do Keats's sympathetic portraits of the fallen Titans and the unrealised perfection of Apollo have to tell us about his conceptions of the poet? I begin by looking back to influential models of the epic poet by Dante, Milton, and Macpherson which Keats and his contemporaries inherited, before examining the extraordinary debate with Moneta in The Fall of Hyperion in which the poet-narrator defends the poet as ‘a sage, / A humanist, physician to all men’, only to destabilise his own claim to the title.

Formulating Responses in an Egalitarian Age (review)

Formulating Responses in an Egalitarian Age, edited by Marc D. Stern. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. 228 pp. $34.95. How to respond to the modern egalitarian age which impacts on and may even threaten the religious observance of the Orthodox Jew-the subject of this book-is not a new topic, and opinions have always spanned a wide spectrum. Responding to the Emancipation, Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-88), the dominant figure of the German Orthodox community, welcomed the changes as offering the Orthodox Jew the opportunity to participate fully in the life of modern society without compromising in the slightest his religious practices. A very different opinion was voiced by the Hatam Sofer (Moshe Sofer, 1762-1839), the leader of Hungarian Orthodox Jewry, who was completely opposed to any changes in society, asserting, Anything new is forbidden by the Torah. Anxiety stemming from possible problems for Orthodox Jews arising from the current climate of religious tolerance continues to plague our religious leaders. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that this complex topic was chosen for the twelfth volume in the Orthodox Forum Series of Yeshiva University. We have here a series of nine essays written by leading thinkers in the Modern Orthodox camp, whose flagship institution is Yeshiva University. Although the writers are all firmly rooted in Modern Orthodoxy, one nevertheless finds significant differences in their understanding of just what the problems are, not to mention different views regarding how to respond to these problems. The book begins with an introductory essay by Marc D. Stern, who comprehensively surveys the scene. Stern calls attention to the deep-seated conflict between egalitarianism-equal treatment of all people-and the often non-egalitarian requirements of halakha. We all want to be fair to our fellow human beings and to respect their right to hold opinions and engage in practices (that injure nobody) differing from our own. Equality has become the bedrock principle of modern civilized society, and for all of us, a fundamental commitment, ethically, emotionally, and philosophically. Therefore, how are we to respond when halakha forbids the practices of our fellow man? Is there a difference if these anti-halakhic practices (say, homosexuality) are carried out by Jews or by non-Jews? Just what are our responsibilities towards our non-Jewish fellow man? Can halakha adapt to modern conditions? Did halakha respond in the past by adapting? Are there any new features present in the egalitarianism of today? These are just some of the questions that Stern raises, admirably setting the tone for the essays that follow. Stern's introductory essay is followed by two outstanding overviews. In the first overview, by Aharon Lichtenstein, we receive the profound, nuanced, and penetrating analysis that one has come to expect from this writer. Lichtenstein rejects out of hand the anything-goes concept of moral relativism that accompanies unbridled egalitarianism. Not only our behavior, but even our opinions, must be restricted by halakhic and Torah considerations. But, having said that, Lichtenstein does not hesitate to castigate those who would ignore the human element, because the Torah itself requires us to recognize-he quotes Milton-the human face divine. …

The Press Response to the Corps of Discovery: The Making of Heroes in an Egalitarian Age

This study examines how the nation's print media played a role in the making of heroes out of early American explorers. The method includes examining the magazine and newspaper text for hero labels and those important hero referents that scholars have long described: distinctive physical skills, an exemplary response to a challenge, and admirable moral characteristics, as well as a reputation that transcends a lifetime.

Health inequalities in later life in a social democratic welfare state

The paper examines inequalities in mental health and “serious” illness, i.e. illness with significant consequences, among 964 men and women aged 65 and over in Norway. The aim is to analyse the extent to which the assumed class differentials in ill health in later life are accounted for by current socioeconomic circumstances and social and economic conditions during upbringing. Multiple logistic regression analyses suggest that the bivariate relationship between previous class location and present health condition among elderly men remains or may be attributed to current income. For women, their previous class location is not significantly related to either health outcome. However, women's current income and present economic difficulties are significantly related to both health measures in the expected direction. In addition, serious illness is related to long-standing illness in childhood, and poorer mental health is associated with economic hardship in childhood and dissension in the family of upbringing. For neither sex was father's social class during upbringing an important predictor of ill health. It is concluded that health inequalities in later life may, at least to some extent, be attributed to the “legacy of the past”, and that the social democratic welfare state has not succeeded in eradicating health inequalities despite its egalitarian age pension policy.

Conditions and Pitfalls of Democracy in an Egalitarian Age

Conditions and Pitfalls of Democracy in an Egalitarian Age

Mixed and Single‐sex Grouping in Secondary Schools

I choose my topic for two reasons: first, its intrinsic interest; and secondly, because it seems to offer an excellent example of how fashion and doctrinaire belief can influence educational practice, even when almost every rational argument-or just plain common-sense-should pull us in the opposite direction. Educational planners in the UK and most liberal societies have taken it for granted over the last few decades that coeducational schools are as desirable in our new egalitarian age as are mixed-ability classes. The effectiveness of the latter in improving overall education has been questioned for some time now by students of school achievement, and that of the former is beginning to give rise to some doubts in the minds of those concerned with the individual attainment-levels of girls and boys. For the purpose of this article I shall assume that there are overpowering arguments for the coeducation of children up to the age of eleven and after the age of sixteen. It is the middle period which seems to demand closer inspection. This is the period when adolescents begin to determine what they want of life, in terms both of career and of emotional satisfaction. They begin, with help, to recognise their own strengths and to build on them. In primitive societies, there is usually strict segregation of the sexes at this stage, so that the girl can identify strongly with other women and the boy with other men before both re-emerge into the mixed life of the adult community. The notion of such segregation in a modern society is anathema to many, including Margaret Mead, who wrote in the concluding part of her work on Samoa: