{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033264033264033266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005197505197505198, 'mean_word_length': 4.9079754601226995, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
David Jones: A Christian Modernist?

appreciate in this volume. I admittedly came to this text as an interested amateur rather than as an expert in the subfield of religion and law. However, even without being as deeply versed as a specialist, I found Ventimiglia’s questions and analyses to be quite fascinating and illuminating. The quandary he names, in which religious actors and organizations root their sacred appeals in secular law, entangles them in a tricky dance in which ‘religious organizations’ legal successes unexpectedly provide the conditions for their religious failure’ (11). It also involves the law in making judgments it is not really designed or equipped to make. There are risks on both sides. Yet, religious organizations’ embrace of intellectual property law as a potential tool of spiritual authority and control ‘reflected a hope that... [they] could inhabit, indeed possess, the law as a tool for the production of the sacred’ (220).