Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:48:20.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Our Critics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Gary D. Glenn  and
John Stack
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We are grateful that the editors secured three thoughtful though critical responses to our essay. Such responses perform a service by calling to our attention matters we have insufficiently considered, pushing us to greater clarity, and perhaps revealing to us errors that we have overlooked.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , Winter 2000 , pp. 43 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Of all the traditional religious stances, it is probably Roman Catholicism that has the hardest time at H[arvard] D[ivinity] S[chool]. Anti-Catholicism is still the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. Certain positions that Catholicism regards as crucial to its vision of the just society cannot be easily advocated in the Divinity School. You try to take a pro-life position there, boy, you're dead. A Catholic has to be either dissident or silent on issues like these—or astonishingly courageous.” Levenson, Jon D., List Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School. Harvard Magazine, 09–10 1999, p. 61.Google Scholar

2 Novak asserts parenthetically that “regime” is “an inappropriate name for humankind's greatest experiment in self-government.” We use the term regime (politeia) nonpejoratively, as did Plato and Aristotle.