This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2010)

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Philosophy may be able to help recruit an expert. (April 2011)

George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906), British writer who coined the term "secularism."

Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.^[1] (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.^[2]

Part of a series on
Irreligion
Irreligion
Secular humanism Secularism Secularity Freethought Post-theism Nontheism Anti-clericalism Antireligion Criticism of religion Parody religion
Atheism
Demographics History State New Implicit and explicit Negative and positive Criticism Discrimination Existence of God Antitheism Atheism and religion
Agnosticism
Strong Weak Agnostic atheism Agnostic theism Apatheism Ignosticism
Naturalism
Humanistic Metaphysical Methodological Religious
People
Atheists Agnostics Humanists Pantheists Deists
Books
The God Delusion God Is Not Great The End of Faith Letter to a Christian Nation Why I Am Not a Christian
Organizations
Atheist Alliance International Freedom From Religion Foundation Reason Rally World Pantheist Movement
Atheism portal WikiProject Atheism
v t e

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such as Ibn Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell.

The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values (also known as secularization). This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.^[3][4] Within countries as well, differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.^[5]

Overview[link]

The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851.^[6] Although the term was new, the general notions of freethought on which it was based had existed throughout history. In particular, early secular ideas involving the separation of philosophy and religion can be traced back to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Averroism school of philosophy.^[7][8] Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."^[9]

Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, "the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience." However, in the view of soft secularism, "the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion."^[10]

State secularism[link]

Motto of the French republic on the tympanum of a church.

In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities.^[11]

Secularism is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe and plays a major role in Western society. The principles, but not necessarily practices, of separation of church and state in the United States and Laïcité in France draw heavily on secularism. Secular states also existed in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages (see Islam and secularism).^[12]

Due in part to the belief in the separation of church and state, secularists tend to prefer that politicians make decisions for secular rather than religious reasons.^[13] In this respect, policy decisions pertaining to topics like abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and sex education are prominently focused upon by American secularist organizations such as the Center for Inquiry.^[14][15]

Most major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society but may still seek to influence political decisions or achieve specific privileges or influence through church-state agreements such as a concordat.^{[citation needed]} Many Christians support a secular state, and may acknowledge that the conception has support in Biblical teachings, particularly Jesus' statement, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."^[16] (See article). However, some Christian fundamentalists (notably in the United States) oppose secularism, often claiming that there is a "radical secularist" ideology being adopted in current days and see secularism as a threat to "Christian rights"^[17] and national security.^[18] The most significant forces of religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world are Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. At the same time, one significant stream of secularism has come from religious minorities who see governmental and political secularism as integral to preserving equal rights.^[19]

Some of the well known states that are often considered "constitutionally secular" are USA,^[20] France, India,^[21] Mexico ^[22] South Korea, and Turkey although none of these nations have identical forms of governance.

Secular society[link]

In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are widely considered a relevant part of the political discourse in many of these countries. This contrasts with other Western countries where religious references are generally considered out-of-place in mainstream politics.

The nature of a secular society could characterize a secular society as one which:

1. Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it.
2. Is not homogenous, but is pluralistic.
3. Is tolerant. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
4. While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed on methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
5. Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their aims.
6. Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application.

Positive Ideals behind the secular society:

1. Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
2. Equality of all people.
3. Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
4. Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.^[23]

Modern sociology has, since Max Weber, often been preoccupied with the problem of authority in secularized societies and with secularization as a sociological or historical process.^[24] Twentieth-century scholars whose work has contributed to the understanding of these matters include Carl L. Becker, Karl Löwith, Hans Blumenberg, M.H. Abrams, Peter L. Berger, Paul Bénichou and D. L. Munby, among others.

Some societies become increasingly secular as the result of social processes, rather than through the actions of a dedicated secular movement; this process is known as secularization.

Secular ethics[link]

George Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.^[25]

Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.

Contemporary ethical debate is often described as "secular", with the work of Derek Parfit and Peter Singer, and even the whole field of contemporary bioethics, having been described or self-described as explicitly secular or non-religious.^{[26][27][28][29]}

Organizations[link]

Groups such as the National Secular Society (United Kingdom) and Americans United campaign for secularism are often supported by Humanists. In 2005, the National Secular Society held the inaugural "Secularist of the Year" awards ceremony. Its first winner was Maryam Namazie, of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran.

Another secularist organization is the Secular Coalition for America. The Secular Coalition for America lobbies and advocates for separation of church and state as well as the acceptance and inclusion of Secular Americans in American life and public policy. While Secular Coalition for America is linked to many secular humanistic organizations and many secular humanists support it, as with the Secular Society, some non-humanists support it.

Local organizations work to raise the profile of secularism in their communities and tend to include secularists, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, and humanists under their organizational umbrella.

Student Organizations, such as the Toronto Secular Alliance, try to popularize nontheism and secularism on campus. The Secular Student Alliance is an educational nonprofit that organizes and aids such high school and college secular student groups.

In Turkey, the most prominent and active secularist organization is Atatürk Thought Association (ADD), which is credited for organizing the Republic Protests – demonstrations in the four largest cities in Turkey in 2007, where over 2 million people, mostly women, defended their concern in and support of secularist principles introduced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

Leicester Secular Society founded in 1851 is the world's oldest secular society.

See also[link]

Contrast:

• Theocracy

References[link]

Further reading[link]

Secular ethic

• Boyer, Pascal (2002). Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. ISBN 0-465-00696-5
• Cliteur, Paul (2010). The Secular Outlook: In Defense of Moral and Political Secularism. ISBN 978444335217
• Dacey, Austin (2008). The Secular Conscience: Why belief belongs in public life. ISBN 978-1-59102-604-4
• Holyoake, G.J. (1898). The Origin and Nature of Secularism. London: Watts & Co., Reprint: ISBN 978-1-174-50035-0
• Jacoby, Susan (2004). Freethinkers: a history of American secularism. New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 0-8050-7442-2
• Nash, David (1992). Secularism, Art and Freedom. London: Continuum International. ISBN 0-7185-1417-3 (paperback published by Continuum, 1994: ISBN 0-7185-2084-X)
• Royle, Edward (1974). Victorian Infidels: the origins of the British Secularist Movement, 1791–1866. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-0557-4 Online version
• Royle, Edward (1980). Radicals, Secularists and Republicans: popular freethought in Britain, 1866–1915. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-0783-6
• Asad, Talal (2003). Formations Of The Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-4768-7
• Taylor, Charles (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02676-6

Secular society

See also the references list in the article on secularization

• Berger, Peter L. (1967) The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1990 edition: ISBN 978-0-385-07305-9.
• Chadwick, Owen (1975). The Secularization of the European mind in the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-39829-9
• Cox, Harvey (1965). The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective. Edition from 1990: ISBN 978-0-02-031155-3
• Kosmin, Barry A. and Ariela Keysar (2007). Secularism and Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives. Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. ISBN 978-0-9794816-0-4; ISBN 0-9794816-0-0
• Martin, David (1978). A General Theory of Secularization. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-18960-2
• Martin, David (2005). On Secularization: Towards a Revised General Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-5322-6
• McLeod, Hugh (2000). Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848–1914. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-59748-6
• Wilson, Bryan (1969). Religion in Secular Society. London: Penguin.
• King, Mike (2007). Secularism. The Hidden Origins of Disbelief. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. ISBN 978-0-227-17245-2

Secular state

• Adıvar, Halide Edip (1928). The Turkish Ordeal. The Century Club. ISBN 0-8305-0057-X
• Benson, Iain (2004). Considering Secularism in Farrows, Douglas(ed.). Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society McGill-Queens Press. ISBN 0-7735-2812-1
• Blancarte, Roberto (2006). Religion, church, and state in contemporary Mexico. in Randall, Laura (ed.). Changing structure of Mexico: political, social, and economic prospects. [Columbia University Seminar]. 2nd. ed. M.E. Sharpe. Chapter 23, pp. 424–437. ISBN 978-0-7656-1405-6.
• Cinar, Alev (2006). Modernity, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey: Bodies, Places, and Time. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-4411-X
• Cliteur, Paul (2010). The Secular Outlook: In Defense of Moral and Political Secularism. ISBN 978444335217
• Juergensmeyer, Mark (1994). The New cold war?: religious nationalism confronts the secular state. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-08651-1
• Schmitt, Karl M. (1962). Catholic adjustment to the secular state: the case of Mexico, 1867–1911. Catholic Historical Review, Vol.48 (2), July, pp. 182–204.
• Urban, Greg (2008). The circulation of secularism. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 21, (1–4), December. pp. 17–37.

External links[link]

Look up secularism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Secularism

• Iain Benson"Considering Secularism"
• Secularism 101: Religion, Society, and Politics
• SecularSites
• SSRC Blog on Secularism, Religion, and the Public Sphere

Alan Dershowitz
Born	Alan Morton Dershowitz (1938-09-01) September 1, 1938 (age 73) Brooklyn, New York
Nationality	American
Ethnicity	Jewish
Education	Brooklyn College (A.B.) Yale Law School (LL.B)
Occupation	Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School
Spouse	1. Sue Barlach 2. Carolyn Cohen
Parents	Harry and Claire Dershowitz
Website
www.alandershowitz.com

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.^[1]

Dershowitz is known for his involvement in several high-profile legal cases and as a commentator on the Arab–Israeli conflict. As a criminal appellate lawyer, he has won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he has handled, and has represented a series of celebrity clients, including Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker.^[2] His most notable cases include his role in 1984 in overturning the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and as the appellate adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995.^[3]

A political liberal,^[4][5][6][7] he is the author of a number of books about politics and law, including Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Bülow Case (1985), the basis of the 1990 film; Chutzpah (1991); Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996); the best-selling The Case for Israel (2003); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004)^[8] and The Case for Peace (2005).

Early life[link]

Dershowitz was born in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to Harry and Claire Dershowitz, an Orthodox Jewish couple, and was raised in Borough Park.^[9] His father was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company.^[10] According to Dershowitz, Harry had a strong sense of justice and talked about how it was "the Jew's job to defend the underdog."^[11]

Dershowitz's first job was at a deli factory on Manhattan's Lower East Side in 1952, at age 14. He recalls tying the strings that separated the hot dogs and once getting locked in the freezer.^[12] He attended Yeshiva University High School, where he played on the basketball team. He was a rebellious student, often criticized by his teachers. The school's career placement center told him he had talent and was capable of becoming an advertising executive, funeral director, or salesman. He later said his teachers told him to do something that "requires a big mouth and no brain ... so I became a lawyer."^[13] After graduating from high school, he attended Brooklyn College and received his A.B. in 1959. Next he attended Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal,^[9] and graduated first in his class with a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in 1962.^[1] He has been a member of a Conservative minyan at Harvard Hillel, but is now a secular Jew.^[14] He is married to Carolyn Cohen and has three children.^[15]

Career[link]

After being admitted to the bar, Dershowitz served as a clerk for David L. Bazelon, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He said that "Bazelon was my best and worst boss at once ... He worked me to the bone; he didn't hesitate to call at 2 a.m. He taught me everything—how to be a civil libertarian, a Jewish activist, a mensch. He was halfway between a slave master and a father figure." During the 1963–1964 term, he served as law clerk for the Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg. He told Tom Van Riper of Forbes that getting a Supreme Court clerkship was probably his second big break; his first was when, at age 14 or 15, a camp counselor told him he was smart but that his mind operated a little differently.^[12] He joined the faculty of Harvard Law School as an assistant professor in 1964, and was made a full professor in 1967 at the age of 28, at that time the youngest full professor of law in the school's history.^[16] He was appointed Felix Frankfurter professor of law in 1993.^[1]

Much of his legal career has focused on criminal law, and his clients have included high-profile figures such as Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, O.J. Simpson and Kirtanananda Swami. He sees himself as a "lawyer of last resort"—someone to turn to when the defendant has few other legal options—and takes those cases that are what he calls "the most challenging, the most difficult and precedent-setting cases."^[15] He is currently advising Julian Assange's legal team.^[17]

Recognition[link]

Dershowitz has been described by Newsweek as America's "most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights."^[1] He was named a Guggenheim Fellow in 1979, and in 1983 received the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award from the Anti-Defamation League for his work on civil rights.^[18] In November 2007, he was awarded the Soviet Jewry Freedom Award by the Russian Jewish Community Foundation.^[19] In December 2011, he was awarded the Menachem Begin Award of Honor by the Menachem Begin Heritage Center at an event co-sponsored by NGO Monitor.^[20] He has been awarded honorary doctorates in law from Yeshiva University, the Hebrew Union College, Monmouth University, University of Haifa, Syracuse University, Fitchburg State College, Bar-Ilan University, and Brooklyn College.^[1] In addition, he is a member of the International Advisory Board of NGO Monitor.^[21]

Cases[link]

Pornography (1976)[link]

In 1976, Dershowitz handled the successful appeal of Harry Reems, who had been convicted of distribution of obscenity resulting from his acting in the pornographic movie Deep Throat. In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful.^[22]

Claus von Bülow (1984)[link]

Dershowitz represented Claus von Bülow, a British socialite, at appeal for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny von Bülow, who died in 2008 after going into a coma in Newport, Rhode Island in 1980. He had the conviction overturned, and von Bülow was acquitted in a retrial.^[23] Dershowitz told the story of the case in his book, Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Bülow case (1985), which was turned into a movie in 1990. Dershowitz was played by actor Ron Silver, and Dershowitz himself had a cameo role as a judge.

Józef Glemp (1989)[link]

In 1989, Dershowitz filed a defamation suit against Cardinal Józef Glemp, then Archbishop of Warsaw, on behalf of Rabbi Avi Weiss. Glemp had accused Weiss and six other New York Jews of attacking nuns at a much-disputed convent on the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Glemp's statement about Weiss, made in July 1989, was coupled with suggestions that Jews control the world's news media. Dershowitz's account of the lawsuit appears in his book Chutzpah (1991).^[24]

Mike Barnicle (1990)[link]

Dershowitz sued The Boston Globe in 1990 over a remark reporter Mike Barnicle attributed to him, in which Dershowitz allegedly said he preferred Asian women because they are deferential to men. Dershowitz reportedly received a $75,000 out-of-court settlement and the newspaper's ombudsman questioned Barnicle's credibility, according to The Boston Phoenix.^[25]

O.J. Simpson (1995)[link]

O.J. Simpson murder case Dershowitz acted as an appellate adviser to O.J. Simpson's defense team during the trial, and later wrote a book about it, Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). He wrote: "the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance."^[26] The case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in American history.^[27]

Jeffrey Epstein (2006)[link]

Dershowitz provided legal assistance to friend and reported billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors. Dershowitz investigated some of Epstein's accusers and provided both the police and the State attorney’s office with a dossier containing information about their personal behavior, which had been obtained from their personal MySpace pages, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Eventually, in 2008, Epstein plead guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence.^[28]

Views[link]

On Israel[link]

While Dershowitz is a leading supporter of Israel, Dershowitz self-identifies as "Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine".^[29] Dershowitz engaged in highly publicized debates with a number of other commentators, including Meir Kahane, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein. When former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006) published—in which he argues that Israel's control of Palestinian land is the primary obstacle to peace—Dershowitz challenged Carter to a debate at Brandeis University. Carter declined, saying, "I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz. There is no need to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."^[30] Carter did address Brandeis in January 2007, but only Brandeis students and staff were allowed to attend. Dershowitz was invited to respond on the same stage only after Carter had left.^[31]

He also took part in the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in April 2009, where he spoke against the motion "this House believes it's time for the US to get tough on Israel," with Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Speakers for the motion were Avraham Burg, former Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former Speaker of the Knesset; and Michael Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA Bin Laden Issue Station. Dershowitz's side lost the debate, with 63 percent of the audience voting for the motion.^[32]

Harvard-MIT divestment petition[link]

Randall Adams of The Harvard Crimson writes that, in the spring of 2002, a petition within Harvard calling for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and American companies that sell arms to Israel gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from the MIT faculty. Among the signatures was that of Harvard's Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, in response to which Dershowitz staged a debate for 200 students in the Winthrop Junior Common Room. He called the petition's signatories antisemitic, bigots, and said they knew nothing about the Middle East. "Your House master is a bigot," he told the students, "and you ought to know that." Adams writes that Dershowitz cited examples of human rights violations in countries that the United States supports, such as the execution of homosexuals in Egypt and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia, and said he would sue any professor who voted against the tenure of another academic because of the candidate's position toward Israel, calling them "ignoramuses with PhDs."^[33]

"New Response to Palestinian Terrorism" (2002)[link]

In March 2002, Dershowitz published an article in The Jerusalem Post entitled "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism." In it, he wrote that Israel should announce a unilateral cessation in retaliation, at the end of which it would "announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings." The list of targets would be made public in advance.^[34] The proposal attracted criticism from within Harvard University and beyond.^[35] James Bamford argued in The Washington Post that it would violate international law.^[36] Norman Finkelstein wrote that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence—except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it."^[37]

Mearsheimer and Walt[link]

In March 2006, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, co-wrote a paper entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," published in The London Review of Books.^[38] Mearsheimer and Walt criticized what they described as "the Israel lobby" for influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in a direction away from U.S. interests and toward Israel's interests. They referred to Dershowitz specifically as an "apologist" for the Israel lobby. In an interview in March 2006 for The Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz called the article "one-sided" and its authors "liars" and "bigots."^[39] The following day on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, he suggested the paper had been taken from various hate sites: "every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Duke’s Web site."^[40] Dershowitz subsequently wrote a report challenging the paper, arguing that it contained "three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrassingly weak logic is employed."^[41] In a letter in the London Review of Books in May 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt denied that they had used any racist sources for their article, writing that Dershowitz had offered no evidence to support what they said was his false claim.^[42]

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict[link]

In July 2006, Dershowitz wrote a series of articles defending the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There was an international outcry at the time regarding escalating Lebanese civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure resulting from Israel's stated attempt to weaken or destroy Hezbollah. After the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour indicated that Israeli officials might be investigated and indicted for possible war crimes, Dershowitz labeled her statement "bizarre," called for her dismissal, and wrote about what he called the "absurdity and counterproductive nature of current international law."^[43] In a Boston Globe editorial several days later, he argued that Israel was not to blame for civilian deaths: "Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them—on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians."^[44]

Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution[link]

Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."^[45]

Views on torture[link]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dershowitz published an article in The San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Want to Torture? Get a Warrant," in which he advocated the issuance of warrants permitting the torture of terrorism suspects, if there were an "absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it."^[46] He argued that authorities should be permitted to use non-lethal torture in a "ticking time bomb scenario," and that it would be less destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to leave it to the discretion of individual law-enforcement agents. He favors preventing the government from prosecuting the subject of torture based on information revealed during such an interrogation.^[47] The "ticking time bomb scenario" is the subject of a play, The Dershowitz Protocol, by Canadian author Robert Fothergill, in which the American government has established a protocol of "intensified interrogation" for terrorist suspects.^[48]

William F. Schulz, Executive Director of the U.S. section of Amnesty International, found Dershowitz's ticking-bomb scenario unrealistic because, he argued, it would require that "the authorities know that a bomb has been planted somewhere; know it is about to go off; know that the suspect in their custody has the information they need to stop it; know that the suspect will yield that information accurately in a matter of minutes if subjected to torture; and know that there is no other way to obtain it."^[49] James Bamford of The Washington Post described one of the practices recommended by Dershowitz—the "sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails"—as "chillingly Nazi-like."^[36]

Animal rights[link]

Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights.^[50] In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004), he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the "somewhat arbitrary decision" to single out our own species for different and better treatment. "Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights."^[51]

Support For The People's Mujahedin of Iran[link]

On February 29, 2012, Dershowitz filed an Amicus Brief in support of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, also known as the MEK, a group designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.^[52][53] The MEK was placed on the list for attacks on U.S. military personal and civilian contractors, and is believed responsible for the deaths of three U.S. Army officers, three U.S. civilian contractors, as well as the wounding of USAF General Harold Price, during an assassination attempt.^[54][55]

The People's Mujahedin of Iran renounced violence in 2001.^[56] However, a 2004 FBI report on the group states that, "MEK is currently actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism.”^[57][58] Additionally, in 2009, seven people plead guilty to providing material support to the People's Mujahedin of Iran.^[59][60]

Criticism[link]

Norman Finkelstein[link]

Shortly after the publication of Dershowitz's The Case for Israel (2003), Norman Finkelstein of DePaul University said the book contained plagiarism.^{[61] [62]} Dershowitz denied the allegation. Harvard's president, Derek Bok, investigated the allegation and determined that no plagiarism had occurred.^[63] However, Dr. Frank Menetrez investigated and corresponded with both Harvard and Dershowitz and concluded that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard, however, has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue."^[64]

In October 2006, Dershowitz wrote to DePaul University faculty members to lobby against Finkelstein's application for tenure. The university's Liberal Arts and Sciences faculty voted to send a letter of complaint to Harvard University.^[65] In June 2007, DePaul University denied Finkelstein tenure.^[66]

Books[link]

Notes[link]