Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reconsidering Christianity As A Support For Secular Law: A Final Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne R. Barnes
Reconsidering Christianity As A Support For Secular Law: A Final Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne R. Barnes
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
This symposium has revolved around Professor Calhoun’s article, which posits that it is completely legitimate, in proposing laws and public policies, to argue for them in the public square based on overtly religious principles. In my initial response, I took issue with his argument that no reasons justify barring faith-based arguments from the public square argument. In fact, I do find reasons justifying the prohibition of “faith-based,” or Christian, arguments in the public square—and, in fact, I find such reasons within Christianity itself. This is because what is being publicly communicated in Christian political argumentation is that if citizens comply …
Church History, Liberty, And Political Morality: A Response To Professor Calhoun, Ian Huyett
Church History, Liberty, And Political Morality: A Response To Professor Calhoun, Ian Huyett
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
In his address, Professor Calhoun used American Christian abolitionism to illustrate the beneficial role that religion can play in political debate. Surveying the past two millennia, I argue that Christian political thought has protected liberty in every era of the church’s dramatic history. Along the way, I rebut critics—from the left and right—who urge that Christianity’s political influence has been unhelpful or harmful. I also seek to show that statements like “religion has no place in politics” are best understood as expressions of arbitrary bias.
The Paradox Of Christian-Based Political Advocacy: A Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne R. Barnes
The Paradox Of Christian-Based Political Advocacy: A Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne R. Barnes
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
Professor Calhoun, in his Article around which this symposium is based, has asserted that it is permissible for citizens to publicly argue for laws or public policy solutions based on explicitly religious reasons. Calhoun candidly admits that he has “long grappled” with this question (as have I, though he for longer), and, in probably the biggest understatement in this entire symposium, notes that Professor Kent Greenawalt identified this as “a particularly significant, debatable, and highly complex problem.” Is it ever. I have a position that I will advance in this article, but I wish to acknowledge at the outset that …
Separation Of Church And State: Jefferson, Lincoln, And The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended To Separate Religion From Politics, Samuel W. Calhoun
Separation Of Church And State: Jefferson, Lincoln, And The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended To Separate Religion From Politics, Samuel W. Calhoun
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
This Essay argues that it’s perfectly fine for religious citizens to openly bring their faith-based values to public policy disputes. Part II demonstrates that the Founders, exemplified by Thomas Jefferson, never intended to separate religion from politics. Part III, focusing upon Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to slavery, shows that religion and politics have been continuously intermixed ever since the Founding. Part IV, emphasizing the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., argues that no other reasons justify barring faith-based arguments from the public square.
Getting The Framers Wrong: A Response To Professor Geoffrey Stone, Samuel W. Calhoun
Getting The Framers Wrong: A Response To Professor Geoffrey Stone, Samuel W. Calhoun
Scholarly Articles
Professor Geoffrey Stone’s Essay, The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?, seeks to state “the truth about . . . what [the Framers] believed, and about what they aspired to when they created this nation.” Doing so will accomplish Professor Stone’s main objective, helping us to understand what “the Constitution allows” on a host of controversial public policy issues. Regrettably, Professor Stone’s effort is unsuccessful. Although he clearly tried to be fair in his historical account, the Essay ultimately presents a misleading view of the Framers’ perspective on the proper relationship between religion and the state.