Response to Jonathan Ashbach

Q3 Social Sciences Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI:10.1017/S0034670523000013
V. P. Muñoz
{"title":"Response to Jonathan Ashbach","authors":"V. P. Muñoz","doi":"10.1017/S0034670523000013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is satisfying to have one’s work taken seriously by the next generation of scholars. I was pleased to learn in Jonathan Ashbach’s article that I advance “both the most persuasive and the dominant articulation of Madison’s beliefs about religious free exercise in the literature” (329). I was less pleased to read that my interpretation is “mistaken,” “in need of revision,” and “fail[s] to appreciate the implications of social contract theory” (330). Upon review, however, I think my work survives his criticism. I believe that Ashbach makes two errors, which leads him to both misinterpret my scholarship and misunderstand Madison. The issue between us is the proper understanding of Madison’s principle of religious freedom. We focus on the same evidence—primarily, Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance”—and read Madison in the same way, as a natural rights, social compact political thinker. We disagree, however, about what Madison’s fundamental principle is. Starting with a 2003 article, further developed in my first book and a subsequent article, I have advanced a “noncognizance” interpretation, contending that Madison held that the state must remain “blind” to religion and thus cannot classify individuals on account of their religious affiliation for purposes of privilege or penalty. Ashbach finds this mistaken because, he","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"85 1","pages":"349 - 351"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670523000013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is satisfying to have one’s work taken seriously by the next generation of scholars. I was pleased to learn in Jonathan Ashbach’s article that I advance “both the most persuasive and the dominant articulation of Madison’s beliefs about religious free exercise in the literature” (329). I was less pleased to read that my interpretation is “mistaken,” “in need of revision,” and “fail[s] to appreciate the implications of social contract theory” (330). Upon review, however, I think my work survives his criticism. I believe that Ashbach makes two errors, which leads him to both misinterpret my scholarship and misunderstand Madison. The issue between us is the proper understanding of Madison’s principle of religious freedom. We focus on the same evidence—primarily, Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance”—and read Madison in the same way, as a natural rights, social compact political thinker. We disagree, however, about what Madison’s fundamental principle is. Starting with a 2003 article, further developed in my first book and a subsequent article, I have advanced a “noncognizance” interpretation, contending that Madison held that the state must remain “blind” to religion and thus cannot classify individuals on account of their religious affiliation for purposes of privilege or penalty. Ashbach finds this mistaken because, he
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对Jonathan Ashbach的回应
一个人的作品被下一代学者认真对待是令人满意的。我很高兴地从乔纳森·阿什巴赫的文章中了解到,我“在文学作品中提出了麦迪逊关于宗教自由信仰的最具说服力和最主要的表述”(329)。我不太高兴地读到我的解释是“错误的”、“需要修改”和“未能理解社会契约理论的含义”(330)。然而,经过回顾,我认为我的作品经受住了他的批评。我认为阿什巴赫犯了两个错误,这导致他既误解了我的学术,也误解了麦迪逊。我们之间的问题是如何正确理解麦迪逊的宗教自由原则。我们关注同样的证据——主要是麦迪逊的《纪念与劝谏》——并以同样的方式解读麦迪逊,把他视为一个自然权利、社会契约的政治思想家。然而,对于麦迪逊的基本原则是什么,我们意见不一。从2003年的一篇文章开始,在我的第一本书和随后的一篇文章中进一步发展,我提出了一种“不承认”的解释,认为麦迪逊认为国家必须对宗教保持“盲目”,因此不能因为个人的宗教信仰而对其进行分类,以获得特权或惩罚。阿什巴赫发现这是错误的,因为他
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Politics
Review of Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
期刊最新文献
Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace: Markets, EdTech, and the spaces of schooling. Ethical Growth in History: Good News and Bad Eric MacGilvray: Liberal Freedom: Pluralism, Polarization, and Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xvi, 221.) Ben Jones: Apocalypse without God: Apocalyptic Thought, Ideal Politics, and the Limits of Utopian Hope. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xiv, 225.) Jean-Yves Frétigné: To Live Is to Resist: The Life of Antonio Gramsci. Translated by Laura Marris. Foreword by Nadia Urbinati. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. Pp. xxii, 306.)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1