Research On Religion » First Amendment

Laura Olson on Attitudes towards Religious Free Exercise

tonygill — Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:00:41 +0000

In light of several recent Supreme Court cases — most notably Hobby Lobby and Obergefell — the issue of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause has come to the public’s attention, particularly as it pertains to public employees. When Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based upon her religious beliefs, a debate arose about how religious freedom applies to government officials. Anticipating potential conflicts that might arise in a public school setting, Prof. Laura Olson from Clemson University, began a research project with several colleagues to survey the opinions of public school teachers around the country. She was interested in discovering what teachers thought about a variety of free exercise issues in the classroom including: 1) the ability of teacher’s to opt out of certain duties based upon religious belief; 2) facing penalties for expressing religious beliefs in the workplace; 3) supporting “unnamed officials” who were refusing certain job duties based upon conscience; 4) support for practicing religious activities on the job; and 5) support for teachers who want to provide clear moral direction on controversial issues. Laura provides us with historical background on how all of these issues became so salient since the middle of the 20th century. And while the results of her collaborative project are still being tabulated, Laura shares the rationale for the study, the research design, and some of the initial, topline findings. Interestingly, political ideology (i.e., conservative versus liberal) tends to be a more salient factor than partisan affiliation (e.g., Democrat, Republican) when it comes to these attitudes, with more conservative individuals supporting greater religious expression in the public school workplace. She and her colleagues also discovered that it was “orthodoxy” in (or strength of) religious belief that mattered more in determining one’s response than denominational identity and weekly attendance at religious services. All of this prompts Tony to ask Laura whether or not we might be seeing a new partisan re-alignment in the electoral landscape that is mediated by attitudes towards religious liberty. We discuss this and Laura also provides some thoughts on how the religious-political landscape has changed over the past several decades and what we might likely see in the presidential election of 2016. Recorded: September 12, 2016.

Beyond Red State and Blue State: Electoral Gaps in the 21st Century American Electorate, by Laura Olson and John Green.

Religious Interests in Community Conflict: Beyond the Culture Wars, by Paul Djupe and Laura Olson.

Women with a Mission: Religion, Gender, and the Politics of Women Clergy, by Laura Olson, Sue Crawford, and Melissa Deckman.

Christian Clergy in American Politics, by Sue Crawford and Laura Olson.

Filled with Spirit and Power: Protestant Clergy in Politics, by Laura Olson.

Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices, by Fowler, Hertzke, Olson, and den Dulk.

The Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics, edited by Paul Djupe and Laura Olson.

RELATED PODCASTS

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Liberty Jurisprudence.

Mark David Hall on Religious Accommodations and the Common Good.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly.

Francis Beckwith on Taking Rights Seriously.

Jeremy Lott on America’s Shifting Religious Electoral Coalition.

Mark David Hall on Religious Accommodations and the Common Good

tonygill — Sun, 03 Jul 2016 08:00:19 +0000

The issue of special exemptions to laws based upon a person’s religious views has been a hot topic in the news lately (e.g., Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, and Arlene’s Flowers). Prof. Mark David Hall, the Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Politics at George Fox University and a senior research fellow at Baylor’s ISR, reviews the history of such religious accommodations to federal and state statutes. As an expert witness in the State of Washington vs. Arlene’s Flowers case, he began to study the depth and scope of exemptions to various laws based upon one’s conscience and published this as a separate paper entitled “Religious Accommodations and the Common Good” (Heritage Foundation’s Backgrounder). He explains the term “common good” and how it relates to religious accommodations, asserting that when we have “Americans at their best,” our nation is sensitive to the sincerely-held religious beliefs of religious majorities and minorities alike. Historically, America has grown more religiously free over time, leading to greater religious diversity. As federal and state government power has expanded, especially in the 20th century, the need for more religious accommodations has also grown, often in new areas. We step back in history to look at some of the policy areas where such accommodations have been made, including military service, the swearing of government oaths, mandatory school attendance, and vaccinations. Quakers, often (though not exclusively) known for their pacifism, have been at the forefront of many of these struggles for accommodations, and Mark reveals how various compromises were made to satisfy the “common good” and the specific religious interest. He notes that exemptions from combat service did not necessarily exempt one from military (or civil) service altogether, as many Quakers and other conscientious objectors were asked to take non-combatant roles (e.g., medics). Other religious groups such as the Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Adventists have received similar accommodations on various statutes and the number of religious accommodations granted numbers over 2000 as of the mid-1990s. We briefly discuss whether and how such accommodations could be abused by individuals seeking to avoid various laws including military service and vaccinations, and whether this has been a major problem (which it appears not to be). Prof. Hall finishes with some observations on the contemporary legal landscape and where he thinks legislation and jurisprudence may be heading in the near future. Recorded: June 27, 2016.

“Religious Accommodations and the Common Good,” by Mark David Hall in The Heritage Foundation’s Backgrounder.

Faith and the Founders of the American Republic, edited by Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, by Mark David Hall.

America’s Forgotten Founders, by Gary L. Gregg and Mark David Hall.

The Sacred Rights of Conscience, edited by Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

See Prof. Hall’s bio (above) for additional books.

RELATED PODCASTS

Should Christians Have Fought in the U.S. War of Independence? (Discover Prof. Hall’s answer.)

Mark David Hall on Religious Minorities in the American Founding.

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, Puritan Patriot.

Mark David Hall on Religion and the Founding Fathers.

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly.

Rajdeep Singh on American Sikhs and Religious Liberty.

Jonathan den Hartog on Patriotism and Piety.

Michael McConnell on Church Property Disputes.

Francis Beckwith on Taking Rites Seriously.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Jurisprudence.

David Cortman on Religious Freedom Updates.

Michael McConnell on Church Property Disputes

tonygill — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:00:52 +0000

What happens to church property when a congregation decides to divorce itself from its denomination? Does the real estate and other forms of property remain with the local congregation, or does the denomination have claim over all that stuff? While the answer to those questions might simply be “whoever bought it in the first place,” the reality is rarely so clear-cut and many of these cases end up in state courts. Prof. Michael McConnell — the Richard and Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford University — sets the issue of church property ownership in historical context to help us understand how such cases are resolved today. We journey back to the 19th century when the “English Rule” was often used to settle disputes between local congregations and their larger denominational structures. Such an approach tended to favor larger, more hierarchical denominations over the congregations. However, in the late 1800s, with the Watson v Jones case, jurisprudence on this matter began to change. Prof. McConnell leads us through these changes and up to the Jones v Wolf decision in 1979, laying out the various issues that came under contention along the way. Michael then makes an argument in favor of “strict neutral principles” of resolving property disputes, noting that this mitigates the need for courts to meddle in, or determine, what it proper church doctrine and organization. He contrasts this approach with “hybrid” approaches that oftentimes yield greater uncertainty in ownership and discourage investment. Several examples of actual court cases are referenced throughout the interview. Recorded: April 13, 2016.

Constitutional Law Center at Stanford.

“On Resolving Church Property Disputes,” by Michael McConnell and Luke Goodrich (at SSRN).

Religion and the Law, edited by Michael McConnell, John Garvey, and Thomas Berg.

Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, edited by Michael McConnell, Robert Cochran, and Angela Carmella.

Watson v Jones (1872), Supreme Court case mentioned in podcast.

Jones v Wolf (1979), Supreme Court case mentioned in podcast.

RELATED PODCASTS

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

Jordan Lawrence on Religious Property Cases.

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly.

David Cortman on Religious Liberty Updates.

Mike Donnelly on Homeschooling.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Jurisprudence.

Francis Beckwith on Taking Rites Seriously

tonygill — Sun, 17 Apr 2016 08:00:07 +0000

Are religious individuals and arguments disadvantaged by certain intellectual arguments in our legal system? Prof. Francis Beckwith, a professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University, argues that “secular rationalism” has arisen in intellectual circles as a means of dismissing the argumentation of religious individuals on a variety of social and legal issues. He explains the concept of “secular rationalism,” why scholars adhering to it tend to dismiss religious reasoning (as not being “reason” at all), and then critiques it as being epistemically suspect, not to mention that it begs several substantive questions. We then explore how a preference for secular rationalism in the legal system affects religious freedom. We review a number of cases where this manifests itself, including cases involving abortion and contraception (Webster v Reproductive Health Services, Burwell v Hobby Lobby), the Pledge of Allegiance (Newdow v Elk Grove School District), intelligent design and evolution (Kitzmiller v Dover, Edwards v Aguillard), and cases involving Sikh religious rights. Frank talks about how his views of intelligent design and the rhetoric surround it have evolved (yes, that is a play on words), and where he thinks our culture is heading with respect to religious rights in the U.S. legal system. Recorded: April 12, 2016.

Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith, by Francis Beckwith.

A Second Look at First Things: A Case for Conservative Politics: The Hadley Arkes Festschrift, edited by Francis Beckwith, Robert P. George, and Susan McWilliams.

Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft, by Francis Beckwith.

Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic, by Francis Beckwith.

RELATED PODCASTS

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Jurisprudence.

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly.

David Cortman on Religious Liberty Updates.

Robert P. George on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

Phillip Muñoz on Catholic Bishops, Religious Liberty, and Health Care Mandates.

Hunter Baker on Secularism.

Ron Hassner on Religion in the Military

tonygill — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 08:00:01 +0000

From issues as diverse as pacifism to rituals that require special garments that interfere with uniforms, militaries around the world often find themselves trying to accommodate the various religious beliefs and practices of their soldiers. How such issues are manage has largely gone unstudied by academics. However, Dr. Ron Hassner — associate professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley — has taken up the task to research this topic by assembling a group of scholars for an edited volume entitled Religion in the Military Worldwide. We discuss the specific findings presented in this work and Prof. Hassner’s general thoughts on the management of religion in the armed forces.

Our discussion begins, though, with a summary of Prof. Hassner’s previous work on “sacred space,” a topic that we have visited before on the podcast. In this line of research, Ron has argued that territory that is deemed sacred to religious adherents faces a problem of being “indivisible,” unlike land or loot, and makes many conflicts very intractable. Ron argues that the failure to understand the importance of “sacred space” has led to numerous diplomatic misunderstandings and policy errors, but he also presents ways to mitigate conflict, which includes involving clergy into policy discussions. We also raise the issue of the “sacred” Big Game between Stanford and Cal, and the iconographic ax that is awarded to the winner, and Ron presents us with a little known, but perhaps very revealing, correlative fact about that ongoing rivalry that involves him.

We revisited this earlier line of Ron’s research agenda because it provided him with a segue into his current interest in understanding how religion functions within militaries and how different countries manage potential conflicts between religious belief and ritual, and the necessary dictates of preparing for, and conducting, combat. And it was not just his previous research that prompted such an interest; Ron’s own experience of having to prepare plates and kitchen utensils for kosher meals led him to think about this topic. He also recounts second-hand stories wherein a Hindu soldier was reported to have risked his life on the battlefield to tend to a cow that was harmed by artillery fire. These and a few other stories helped to pique Ron’s interest into investigating whether or not there are any interesting empirical regularities around the world as to the management of religion in the military. Finding virtually no pre-existing literature on the topic, he decided to assemble a group of scholars who had some connection to the topic and he discusses how this came together in the edited volume noted above.

We then dive into the topic of religious demographics in the military, which one might think would be a relatively straightforward task for empirical research. However, many militaries, including the United States, do not keep and/or share religious demographics. Ron explains how some scholars have tried to get around this lack of data with unique collection strategies, including counting beards, the number and denomination of chaplains, and yarmulkes. Issues of mandatory conscription versus an all-volunteer force can have an interesting impact on the religious demographics. Ron further asked his scholars to probe the issue of the denominational composition of smaller units within the military. This leads to an interesting discussion on socialization and how even members of a platoon who do not initially share the religious beliefs and practices of the majority of the group will often conform to those preferences over time as an act of cohesion. Ron shares a few interesting stories to this effect.

We then talk about the manner in which military commanders have to accommodate very specific religious practices that might conflict with standard operating procedures with a large bureaucracy. Tony brings up the issue of Sikhs and protective helmets, given that the Sikh practice of long hair and turbans make it difficult to outfit soldiers with this basic piece of safety gear. Prof. Hassner then brings up the fascinating case of Japan, a nation that many people consider to be amongst the most secular in the world. Ron notes that although religion is significantly downplayed in the Japanese defense forces, a very large number of soldiers (including officers) will not drive vehicles or board ships that have not been blessed by Shinto clergy in a purification ritual to rid the object of evil spirits.

Our next topic is to look into the U.S. case and how religion is managed therein. Here Ron talks about how he had two different scholars with differing viewpoints — Martin Cook and Pauletta Otis — regarding the presence in the U.S. armed forces. The former shows a great deal of concern over the excesses of religious symbolism in military music and symbols/badges used on the battlefield. He sees these excesses as conflicting with general military goals of trying to win hearts and minds of populations in foreign lands, particularly in recent military campaigns in the Middle East. Otis, on the other hand, notes that while excesses do exist, there are procedures for addressing these problems and the system works fairly well, which leads her the con. We also chat a bit about how religious belief and practice play out in daily operations, including combat. This is the main topic of Ron’s next book but he gives us a flavor for some of his findings, as well as what some of the authors in his edited volume had to say. It is hear where we look both at the Iranian military and India’s armed forces. We discuss how there was an interesting selection bias in the Iranian military during the Iran-Iraq War that led many devout Muslims to join special units that engaged in suicide attacks out of a firm belief in martyrdom. We explore India’s experience in trying to integrate people of very different faith traditions that are often in conflict with one another into the same units. Interestingly, Ron notes that rather than creating religiously homogenous units that might be prone to mutiny if ordered to fight against co-religionists, combining individuals of different faiths actually helps to build unit cohesion as all the soldiers know they are dependent upon one another for survival on the battlefield irrespective of spiritual preferences.

We finish our interview with some of Ron’s reflections on what he has learned throughout the years of studying this topic. One of his main takeaways was that there really are no pat solutions to dealing with the issue of religion in the armed forces, but rather leaders are often learning and adjusting to changing circumstances. Recorded: October 7, 2015.

Religion in the Military Worldwide, edited by Ron Hassner.

War on Sacred Ground, by Ron Hassner.

RELATED PODCASTS

Ron Hassner on Sacred Space and Holy Conflict.

Philip Jenkins on Religion and World War I.

Robert Kinnune on Military Chaplains.

Sean Scott on Religious Rhetoric in the US Civil War.

James Felak on Pope Pius XII, the Wartime Pontiff.

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly

tonygill — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:00:01 +0000

How do the “four freedoms” of the US Constitution’s First Amendment relate to one another? And what has happened historically to this relationship. Prof. John Inazu, associate professor of law and political science at Washington University (St. Louis), explores these questions with a particular focus on the relationship between the free exercise of religion and the right to assembly. We talk about historical conceptions of the “four freedoms” and how the interrelatedness of these essential liberties have changed since the middle of the 20th century. (Technically, we do note that there are “five freedoms” in the First Amendment, but we ignore the right of petition in this interview.)

The conversation begins with our usual banter to get to know the guest. We discover that even though he has multiple degrees from Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill, John remains a solid fan of the Blue Devils. He also explains his work as a lawyer for the US Air Force and why his position wasn’t categorized as a JAG and how this allowed him to avoid wearing a uniform.

We then jump into a discussion as to what the “four freedoms” are — free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to assembly — and how these freedoms were conceived of early in US history. (It is here where John notes that there is actually a fifth freedom — petition — that not many scholars pay attention to.) John sets this discussion into a pluralist framework as conceived of by Madison and other Founding Fathers. The idea here as that division and conflict are likely to be part of the political landscape and knowing how to manage it with a balanced set of freedoms is critical. Tony notes from his own work that the freedoms listed in the First Amendment are separated not by periods, but by semi-colons, which seems to indicate some degree of contingency. John agrees and we talk a bit about the connection between these rights, particularly with reference to religious free expression and the right to assemble peaceably.

It is mentioned that US history, despite the lofty goals of the US Constitution, has not always lived up to the ideal of preserving and protecting these freedoms for all. John noted that the Founding Fathers did have their blind spots, particularly over race, and there have been many instances of minorities being denied freedoms or outright persecuted. One of the important groups for our discussion is the Jehovah’s Witnesses who were quick to assert their rights of association along with the labor movement in the early decades of the 20th century. We talk about how the height of “four freedom” rhetoric occurred in the 1930s and ’40s when the US was faced with a totalitarian threat overseas and was also put in a position of promoting freedom abroad. This leads to a particularly fascinating discussion of the limits of freedom and how living up to high standards was difficult during the 1950s when there was concern over communist interests using the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution to undermine American democracy. This problem, John notes, is endemic to a free nation that must balance an absolute right to freedom (which is hard to ever achieve) with the threat of imminent violence.

…

“The Four Freedoms and the Future of Religious Liberty ,” by John Inazu (article at SSRN).

Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly, by John Inazu.

Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference, by John Inazu (article for forthcoming book).

Theological Argument in Law: Engaging with Stanley Hauerwas, edited by John Inazu.

RELATED PODCASTS

David Cortman on Religious Liberty Updates.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemption.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Jurisprudence.

Jordan Lorence on Religious Property Cases.

Phillip Muñoz on Catholic Bishops, Religious Liberty, and Health Care Mandates.

Mark David Hall on Religion and the Founding Fathers.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions

tonygill — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:00:42 +0000

Join us at our Facebook Fan Page for updates on what new and interesting shows are in the queue!

Can a elementary school teacher at a private religious school be relieved of her duties because of difficulties with a diagnosed disability? Does such an incident apply under the “ministerial exemption” under the rules put forth by the Equal Employment & Opportunity Commission? These were the issues at stake in the recently decided Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC (decided January 2012). While seemingly a minor case in the eyes of the general public, the surprising decision handed down by the nine SCOTUS justices will likely have a wide-reaching impact on religious liberty issues. Prof. Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion & the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, helps us understand the details and broad scope of this historic decision. We begin by outlining the initial complaint in the case — how Cheryl Perich, a grade school instructor with numerous duties and a person designated as a “called teacher” (an important detail in the case), was not rehired after taking a leave of absence due to issues with narcolepsy. Matt explains how the conflict generated first made its way into a district court in Michigan and then proceeded up the chain of the legal system to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The initial district court decision was to dismiss Mr. Perich’s complaint, but the 6th Circuit judges reversed this ruling arguing that she had been discriminated against. Prof. Franck explains how the legal process generally works and how it related to this case, and he further provides information about the “ministerial exemption” clause to most labor regulations. The “ministerial exemption” becomes the fulcrum point on which this case balanced and, in theory, allows for religious institutions to gain exceptions from certain anti-discrimination labor laws if the matter of discrimination impinges upon religious rights of conscience and the ability of a religious group to carry out its mission. Matt provides several examples of how this exemption would work in practice and notes that a legal test of this exemption has never made its way up to the Supreme Court until Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC. For the most part, the legal system has been fairly liberal in granting these exemptions. We then cover why the 6th Circuit Court reversed the lower court’s decision, with the explanation hinging upon a decision of how much time Ms. Perich spent on ministerial (religious) duties relative to other activities, such as teaching art. It is at this point that Tony reveals he may have eaten paste as a kid. Prof. Franck then takes us through the procedures on how this case moved to the SCOTUS and answers Tony’s question, “How did Hosanna-Tabor pay for the legal fees?” He reveals that a case of this magnitude often draws interested parties along the way, and this test of “ministerial exemption” drew the attention of groups like The Beckett Fund, which played an instrumental role in arguing the case. We then look at arguments on both sides of the case, with Matt positing that the Solicitor General’s lawyers (i.e., the government’s litigation team) may have made a significant error in its legal arguments. We also discuss how the “chattering classes” were making prognostications about this case and whether or not they thought it would be a close decision and in which direction the decision would fall. Surprisingly, we learn, the decision was a unamimous 9-0 victory for Hosanna-Tabor. Prof. Franck finishes the interview with what the implications of this case on the general issue of religious freedom as well as specific cases such as the legal rights of private businesses and volunteer organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. Recorded: April 23, 2013.

Against the Imperial Judiciary: The Supreme Court versus the Soverignty of the People, by Matthew J. Franck.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC, et al. Suprme Court case.

RELATED PODCASTS

Phillip Muñoz on Catholic Bishops, Religious Liberty, and Health Care Mandates.

Gary Friesen on Christian Reconciliation Services

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, Puritan Patriot

tonygill — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 08:00:38 +0000

Building on our discussion last week, Prof. Mark David Hall — Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science at George Fox University (Newberg, OR) — brings his perspective on the role of religion in America’s Founding to our podcast. Using Roger Sherman as an anchor point, Prof. Hall demonstrates how Calvinist theology and political thought was quite common in the latter half of the 18th century. We detail the life of Roger Sherman, revealing that he was one of the most important, yet most overlooked, of the Founding Fathers, having participated in the conventions that resulted in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution. Mark makes the case that Calvinist (or Reformed) social thought led to many of the same conclusions about political liberty and separation of church and state that secular Enlightenment thinkers did. Moreover, he argues that the majority of individuals involved in influencing the Founding documents were of a Reformed mindset, as compared to the more Deistic (or Unitarian) theology ascribed to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. We discuss Prof. Hall’s position on whether or not the US was founded as a Christian nation. Recorded: June 1, 2011.

Please note: This episode was recorded one day earlier than the interview recorded with Prof. John Fea. I consider these two podcasts to be part of a vigorous debate about the influence of religion in the founding of America. Prof. Hall’s podcast is airing one week later due to a commitment I made to have his podcast air on July 4 before securing the interview date with Prof. Fea. Dr. Hall’s trip to China required me to move up the interview date.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Mark David Hall’s website at George Fox University.

“Jeffersonian Walls and Madisonian Lines” article mentioned in the podcast written by Mark David Hall.

The Founders on God and Government edited by Daniel L Dreisbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry H. Morrison.

America’s Forgotten Founders edited by Gary L. Gregg and Mark David Hall.

The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life edited by Daniel L Dreisbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry H. Morrison.

The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding by Daniel L. Driesbach and Mark David Hall.

RELATED PODCASTS

Mark David Hall on Religion & the Founding Fathers.

John Fea on Religion & the American Founding.

Thomas Kidd on the Pilgrims.

Thomas Kidd on the Great Awakening.

Jay Hein on the Faith-Based & Community Initiative

tonygill — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:00:58 +0000

Jay Hein — Distinguished Senior Fellow at Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion and founding president of The Sagamore Institute — talks with Tony about his tenure running the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) in the Bush Administration (2006-08). We begin by discussing the role of private charity in the US economy and briefly review the historical interaction between government and religious groups. Our attention then turns to the operation of the OFBCI with particular emphasis on how the program was designed not only to provide funding opportunities for religious charities, but perhaps more importantly to remove regulatory barriers standing in the way of these groups and to facilitate a more cooperative relationship with state and federal governments. Hein provides several examples of how the Faith-Based Initiative worked in practice, including prisoner re-entry programs and AIDS relief in Africa. Another underlying theme of the podcast relates to the proper relationship between government and religious organizations. President Barack Obama’s continuation of this program is also mentioned. We condlude our discussion with some critiques of the Faith-Based Initiative and the Supreme Court case initiated by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Recorded: August 18, 2010.

RELATED LINKS

Jay Hein’s website at Baylor’s ISR.

The Sagamore Institute (Indianapolis, IN).

The President’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative in the 50 States: Report to the Nation’s Governors (Feb. 2008).

President Barack Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Hudson Institute’s Index of Global Philanthropy & Remittances 2010.

RELATED PODCASTS

Mark David Hall on Religion & the Founding Fathers.

Erik Stanley on Clergy & Free Speech.

Byron Johnson on Religion & Delinquency.

Mark David Hall on Religion & the Founding Fathers

tonygill — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:30:49 +0000

Much ado has been made about Thomas Jefferson’s famous phrase “a wall of separation between church and state,” written in a letter to several Baptist ministers from Danbury, Connecticut. Aside from this statement, how did the Founding Fathers view the relationship between church and state, and religion and politics? How have the thoughts of the Founding Fathers (not just Jefferson) been used in modern church-state court cases? Mark David Hall, the Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science at George Fox University (Newberg, OR), talks with Tony Gill about the views of Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Roger Sherman. Hall elaborates on how the views of such men have been selectively used by Supreme Court justices. The podcast concludes with a discussion of current church-state controversies including the National Day of Prayer. Recorded: May 5, 2010.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Mark David Hall’s website.

“Jeffersonian Walls and Madisonian Lines” article by Mark David Hall.

The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding by Daniel Driesbach and Mark David Hall.

Letter from the Danbury Baptists.

Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Everson v Board of Education.

RELATED PODCASTS

Stanley on Clergy & Free Speech.