Philosophy

It has been argued that citizens should use restraint in using certain types of reasoning while operating in the
public square. Specifically, religious reasoning has been singled out as one that should not be used for the creation
of legislation. Though there are a multitude of reasons for this, one rationale that is often cited is the claim that
religion is divisive and dangerous. This assumption has become engrained in the legal community, and it has for
the most part gone unchallenged. This article argues that religious reasoning is not always divisive and dangerous.
It often promotes peace and unity. Moreover, secular reasoning does not always lead to peace, and it has in fact
lead to some of the most heinous violations of human rights in history. Furthermore, to use the avoidance of
potential division and civil strife to exclude certain types of public reason as a guiding principle is too broad. The
principle, if applied universally, would exclude not only religious reasons, but it would also exclude historical,
scientific, and legal reasoning. Thus, it would be wise to allow religious reasoning just as the other sources of
justification are allowed until certain claims show themselves to be false or in violation of others’ rights. This is
asking for no more than what other sources of justification are afforded.

In this paper I suggest that the same sex marriage advocate has a strong burden to prove that there is a natural right to same-sex marriage. In order for there to be a natural right to same-sex marriage the union must adhere to the natural law. I argue that same-sex marriage fails to fulfill the natural law for many reasons. First, homosexuality fails to fulfill the natural ends for the body parts that are used in this union. Second, homosexuality is often deleterious to the health of those who participate in it. I then argue that for there to be a natural right to same-sex marriage same-sex unions must actually be marriage by nature.  Natural rights require natures. If constructivist accounts of marriage are correct in saying that there are no such things as natures, then there also is no natural right to same-sex marriage. Thus, to say one has the right to same-sex marriage in the same way the American Founding Fathers used the term, requires one to embrace natural law. By appealing to the natural law, the same-sex marriage advocate is also able to be judged by it. By getting rid of the natural law to avoid this judgment, the same-sex marriage advocate has thrown out the ability to appeal to an objective principle upon which we can justify the written law. Thus, the same-sex advocate cannot appeal to natural rights for the endorsement of same-sex marriage laws. By demanding that one has a natural right to same-sex marriage, the union is judged against the law and found wanting.

The American founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are being replaced.  More specifically, many legal scholars, jurists, and politicians act legally and politically from different philosophical assumptions than that which is contained in this famous document.  It has been argued that to stray from the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence is to stray from that which makes America, America. This essay will show that America is in a transition from a government that was founded on the principles of Natural Law with a minimal commitment to deism to a government that is founded on a Rawlsian type social contract theory that is committed to secular reason.  Furthermore, this article will show that while the original American constitutional experiment was by and large congenial to religious reasoning, many contemporary theorists believe that religious restraint is demanded by a properly functioning liberal democracy.

Many in the current legal culture perceive religious reasoning as irrational, as well as divisive and dangerous. Both legal scholars as well as state and federal judges agree that this perception affects the outcome of both free exercise and establishment cases. The two sides differ in that one side believes that to treat all religious claims as irrational, divisive, and dangerous is unjust; whereas, the other side thinks that this caricature is correct and that it needs to be
enforced.

Many in the current legal culture perceive religious reasoning as irrational, as well as divisive and dangerous. Both legal scholars as well as state and federal judges agree that this perception affects the outcome of both free exercise and establishment cases. The two sides differ in that one side believes that to treat all religious claims as irrational, divisive, and dangerous is unjust; whereas, the other side thinks that this caricature is correct and that it needs to be enforced. Religious Reasoning as Irrational There is no shortage of those who recognize the treatment of religious reasoning as irrational, divisive, and dangerous. James Hitchcock devotes an entire section of his book The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life 1 to the U.S. Supreme Court's perception of religion. According to Hitchcock, this position of religion as irrational has become the opinion of the majority of Supreme Court justices. He states that they perceived religion as resting "on foundations that SHANNON HOLZER (B.

The early enemies of Christianity spread several rumors about the followers of Jesus Christ. They accused them of cannibalism because they partook in the "body of Christ." Their accusers also believed them to practice necrophilia because they met in the catacombs. Christians were accused of being sexually promiscuous because of their "love feasts." Supposedly guilty of these charges, Christians were treated as enemies of the state. Yet none of these accusations were true. For one, Christians were not literally eating the physical body of Jesus. This is true even from the Roman Catholic perspective that says the Eucharist becomes the substance of Christ's body. Christians did not save the body of Jesus, which they

The early enemies of Christianity spread several rumors about the followers of Jesus Christ. They accused them of cannibalism because they partook in the "body of Christ." Their accusers also believed them to practice necrophilia because they met in the catacombs. Christians were accused of being sexually promiscuous because of their "love feasts." Supposedly guilty of these charges, Christians were treated as enemies of the state. Yet none of these accusations were true. For one, Christians were not literally eating the physical body of Jesus. This is true even from the Roman Catholic perspective that says the Eucharist becomes the substance of Christ's body. Christians did not save the body of Jesus, which they

According to Pierre Manent, much of the history of liberalism has been the attempt to escape "decisively the power of the singular religious institution of the Church…" 1 Much like a beat reporter who knows that controversy arouses the passions and is much more likely to hit the front page than the fact that society as a whole is intact, those who tell the story of church and state often tell the sordid tale of crusades, inquisitions, and witch trials. 2 One

The early enemies of Christianity spread several rumors about the followers of Jesus Christ. They accused them of cannibalism because they partook in the "body of Christ." Their accusers also believed them to practice necrophilia because they met in the catacombs. Christians were accused of being sexually promiscuous because of their "love feasts." Supposedly guilty of these charges, Christians were treated as enemies of the state. Yet none of these accusations were true. For one, Christians were not literally eating the physical body of Jesus. This is true even from the Roman Catholic perspective that says the Eucharist becomes the substance of Christ's body. Christians did not save the body of Jesus, which they