Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
Eugene, I can't, offhand, help you with precise theological sources, but you might be interested in an internal debate that occurred at Calvin College, the very intellectually and religiously serious Dutch Reformed college in Michigan, when the school administration decided (after the Virginia Tech tragedy) to issue guns to some members of the college security force. A group of students got very upset over the decision, claiming it was unchristian, and the administration produced a Theological Explanation for the Use of Force Policy. For some account, see, e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/use-of-force.htm http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=530 http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3713 http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/calvin_board_oks_gun_policy_fo.html I haven't been able to find the explanation theological document that the college administration drafted in defense of its policy. Hope this helps. Perry Eugene Volokh wrote: I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that (1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
Very interesting, thanks very much! -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Perry Dane Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:18 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise Eugene, I can't, offhand, help you with precise theological sources, but you might be interested in an internal debate that occurred at Calvin College, the very intellectually and religiously serious Dutch Reformed college in Michigan, when the school administration decided (after the Virginia Tech tragedy) to issue guns to some members of the college security force. A group of students got very upset over the decision, claiming it was unchristian, and the administration produced a Theological Explanation for the Use of Force Policy. For some account, see, e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/use-of-force.htm http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=530 http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3713 http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/calvin_board_oks_gun_policy_fo.htm l I haven't been able to find the explanation theological document that the college administration drafted in defense of its policy. Hope this helps. Perry Eugene Volokh wrote: I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that (1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
There are elaborate rules of jewish law on the subject of self defense. Basically unlike American. Law they put a premium on the life of the person attacked with doubts resolved in his or her favor even at the expense of the attacker's life. There are obviously different rules when a lesser response will suffice. .this hard line attitude helps explain why many israelis reject ihl insistence that doubts about the availability of a self defense claim be resolved against the claim. I will try to find a written summary Marc stern - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri Mar 20 18:10:46 2009 Subject: RE: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise Very interesting, thanks very much! -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Perry Dane Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:18 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise Eugene, I can't, offhand, help you with precise theological sources, but you might be interested in an internal debate that occurred at Calvin College, the very intellectually and religiously serious Dutch Reformed college in Michigan, when the school administration decided (after the Virginia Tech tragedy) to issue guns to some members of the college security force. A group of students got very upset over the decision, claiming it was unchristian, and the administration produced a Theological Explanation for the Use of Force Policy. For some account, see, e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/use-of-force.htm http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=530 http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3713 http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/calvin_board_oks_gun_policy_fo.htm l I haven't been able to find the explanation theological document that the college administration drafted in defense of its policy. Hope this helps. Perry Eugene Volokh wrote: I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that (1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 d...@crab.rutgers.edu Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596 Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that (1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). The connection to the law of government and religion, as opposed to just religious law, is a section on possible religious freedom challenges in an article I'm writing about bans on tasers. Some states and cities ban tasers, but allow guns, so that people -- including those who have religious objections to using deadly force -- are pressured into either using guns or forgoing the ability to use any highly effective defensive weapons. Many thanks, Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
