Historical Perspectives

I want us to address a question or two to each other. I would like to begin with a bit of discourse with John Noonan, because there are two whole sides to the question of the Middle Ages and rights. There is a positive side that I was discussing—it is surprising the extent to which rights theories a...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press 1987
In: Journal of law and religion
Year: 1987, Volume: 5, Issue: 1, Pages: 213-224
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1823559727
003 DE-627
005 20221124170247.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221124s1987 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.2307/1051026  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1823559727 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1823559727 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
245 1 0 |a Historical Perspectives 
264 1 |c 1987 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a I want us to address a question or two to each other. I would like to begin with a bit of discourse with John Noonan, because there are two whole sides to the question of the Middle Ages and rights. There is a positive side that I was discussing—it is surprising the extent to which rights theories and rights practices did grow up. And, there is a negative side, and I ignored it because I knew John was going to do it, but it is equally important. Why did middle age theologians fail to recognize what is, to us, the most obvious right, that of religious liberty, when, to us, it seems that it is not just pragmatically useful, but, as John was saying at the end, that it is intrinsically right and follows from the precepts of the Gospel? But nobody in the thirteenth century grasped this, even though they had all the elements from which you can make a theory of religious liberty. Every decent theologian and canonist between 1150 and 1250 held that a person can not be forcibly converted to Christianity and that Christ will accept only a willing believer. Every one held that a person has an absolute duty to follow his own conscience, and to a twentieth century mind the obvious conclusion is, religious liberty is permitted. And, yet the thought simply never occurred to anybody. And, I think John might even have put the case more extremely. It is not just that Thomas Aquinas got it wrong, that buried in his books he made intellectual errors. Every single commonsensical, kind, decent person in the thirteenth century thought it was obviously necessary to repress heretics. I am going to ask John why, at the end of all this. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of law and religion  |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983  |g 5(1987), 1, Seite 213-224  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)461908581  |w (DE-600)2164472-X  |w (DE-576)273875132  |x 2163-3088  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:5  |g year:1987  |g number:1  |g pages:213-224 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.2307/1051026  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/historical-perspectives/3979842F5A584F152C9D8647FA2588D5  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4219217797 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1823559727 
LOK |0 005 20221124170148 
LOK |0 008 221124||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo  |a rwrk 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL