Saturday, February 16, 2008

Oman, Preaching to the Court House and Judging in the Temple

Preaching to the Court House and Judging in the Temple, is a new paper by Nathan B. Oman, William and Mary. Here's the abstract:
A number of American religious denominations - Quakers, Baptists, Mormons, and others - have tried with varying degrees of success to opt out of the secular legal system, resolving civil litigation between church members in church courts. Using the story of the rise and fall of the jurisdiction of Mormon courts over ordinary civil disputes, this article provides three key insights into the interaction between law and religion in nineteenth-century America. First, it dramatically illustrates the fluidity of the boundaries between law and religion early in the century and the hardening of those boundaries by its end. The Mormon courts initially arose in a context in which the professional bar had yet to establish a monopoly over adjudication. By century's end, however, the increasing complexity of the legal environment hardened the boundaries around the legal profession's claimed monopoly over adjudication. Second, the decline of the Mormon courts shows how allegiance to the common-law courts became a prerequisite of assimilation into the American mainstream. While hostility to the secular courts had been a hallmark of a major stream of American Protestantism during the colonial period and the first decades of the Republic, by the end of the nineteenth century, Mormons' rejection of those courts marked them off as dangerous outsiders. Part of the price of their acceptance into the national mainstream was the abandonment of legal distinctiveness. Finally, the story of the Mormon courts also illustrates the importance of law for the development of religious beliefs and practices. Other scholars have documented the "public law" side of this story, showing how the federal government's effort to eradicate Mormon polygamy was central to Mormon experience in the last half of the nineteenth century and ultimately forced a revolution in Mormon beliefs and practices. The rise and fall of the Mormon court system, however, shows that private law could exercise no less of a power over the religious imagination.

1 comment:

Timothy Lubin said...

Pertinent to recent religion and law posts, this week's Economist has a couple of features that discuss a variety situations of legal pluralism or polycentricity (though they don't actually use such terms):

"Faith, law and democracy: Defining the limits of exceptionalism"

and

"Church and state: Sever them"
(The Economist's editorial opinion.)

These articles allude to the differences between the relation of a secular legal system to a predominant or deeply entrenched religion and its institutions, and its relation to the legal or other normative structures of minority religions. But the dynamics is not the same. As these questions come to prominence again, the Mormon case can be instructive.


Tim Lubin