The Lewis and Clark Law Review, with the guidance of Professor Jim Oleske, has put together a very nice symposium on Law and Religion in an Increasingly Polarized America. Very interesting papers by Kathleen Brady, Kent Greenawalt, Jessie Hill, Andy Koppelman, Ron Krotoszynski, Chip Lupu and Bob Tuttle, Jim Oleske, and Robin Wilson.
I’ve got a piece in there too, Religious Accommodation, Religious Tradition, and Political Polarization, which takes a somewhat critical look at the religious accommodation regime from, as it were, the other side.
In February, the University of Nebraska Press will release “Unpopular Sovereignty: Mormons and the Federal Management of Early Utah Territory,” by Brent Rogers (Brigham Young University). The publisher’s description follows:
Newly created territories in antebellum America were designed to be extensions of national sovereignty and jurisdiction. Utah Territory, however, was a deeply contested space in which a cohesive settler group—the Mormons—sought to establish their own “popular sovereignty,” raising the question of who possessed and could exercise governing, legal, social, and even cultural power in a newly acquired territory.
In Unpopular Sovereignty, Brent M. Rogers invokes the case of popular sovereignty in Utah as an important contrast to the better-known slavery question in Kansas. Rogers examines the complex relationship between sovereignty and territory along three main lines of inquiry: the implementation of a republican form of government, the administration of Indian policy and Native American affairs, and gender and familial relations—all of which played an important role in the national perception of the Mormons’ ability to self-govern. Utah’s status as a federal territory drew it into larger conversations about popular sovereignty and the expansion of federal power in the West. Ultimately, Rogers argues, managing sovereignty in Utah proved to have explosive and far-reaching consequences for the nation as a whole as it teetered on the brink of disunion and civil war.
This month, University of Virginia Press releases “Pulpit and Nation: Clergymen and the Politics of Revolutionary America,” by Spencer McBride. The publisher’s description follows:
In Pulpit and Nation, Spencer McBride highlights the importance of Protestant clergymen in early American political culture, elucidating the actual role of religion in the founding era. Beginning with colonial precedents for clerical involvement in politics and concluding with false rumors of Thomas Jefferson’s conversion to Christianity in 1817, this book reveals the ways in which the clergy’s political activism—and early Americans’ general use of religious language and symbols in their political discourse—expanded and evolved to become an integral piece in the invention of an American national identity. Offering a fresh examination of some of the key junctures in the development of the American political system—the Revolution, the ratification debates of 1787–88, and the formation of political parties in the 1790s—McBride shows how religious arguments, sentiments, and motivations were subtly interwoven with political ones in the creation of the early American republic. Ultimately, Pulpit and Nation reveals that while religious expression was common in the political culture of the Revolutionary era, it was as much the calculated design of ambitious men seeking power as it was the natural outgrowth of a devoutly religious people.
This morning at the Law and Liberty site, I have a post on the controversy surrounding President Trump’s executive order on immigration. I criticize the way the order was prepared and released, but also the unhinged reaction to it.
Here’s an excerpt:
And yet, the unhinged reaction to the order also doesn’t help. Don’t believe the hashtags: the order does not ban Muslim immigration to the US or impose a religious test for admission. The language is quite technical, and there are complications I lack space to address here. But, basically, the order does two things. First, it places a temporary ban on the admission of refugees from anywhere in the world, for 120 days, while officials review our current procedures to determine whether further security measures are necessary. After this 120-day period, the government will resume admitting refugees, up to 50,000 this year, under whatever new procedures officials devise.
The government will also be authorized, after 120 days, to give priority to refugees who are religious minorities and subject to persecution in their home countries. In an interview, President Trump indicated that he had Christians in mind. But by its terms the order extends to other religious minorities as well. In other words, it could cover Yazidi refugees from Iraq and Ahmadi Muslim refugees from Pakistan. It is not a unique preference for Christians—an issue I will address more in a moment.
You can read the whole post here.