Groff v. DeJoy: Hardison is Dead, Long Live Hardison!
Reflections on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Religious Autonomy in Carson v. Makin
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: The Final Demise of Lemon and the Future of the Establishment Clause
Lemon on the Chopping Block: The Establishment Clause Implications of Shurtleff v. City of Boston
Fulton v. Philadelphia: The Future of Church-State Cooperation in the Social Welfare Arena
Fruit of the Poisonous Lemon Tree: How the Supreme Court Created Offended-Observer Standing, and Why It’s Time for it to Go
The Point Isn’t Moot: How Lower Courts Have Blessed Government Abuse of the Voluntary-Cessation Doctrine
The Ministerial Exception After Hosanna-Tabor: Firmly Founded, Increasingly Refined
Administrative Power and Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court
Religious Freedom v. the Blaine Amendment: Current Challenges to a Discriminatory Remnant of the Nineteenth Century
Religious Exemptions Aren’t Special Privileges
Constitutional Anomalies or As-Applied Challenges? A Defense of Religious Exemptions
Constitutional Anomalies or As-Applied Challenges? A Defense of Religious Exemptions
Sex, Drugs, and Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study of Federal Religious Freedom Cases
Symposium: Shotgun wedding? Forcing religious vendors to participate in wedding ceremonies
Why is Trump’s DOJ Defending ‘Absolute’ Restrictions on Sermons?
When a Pastor’s House Is a Church Home: Why the Parsonage Allowance Is Desirable Under the Establishment Clause
Coming Soon to a Court Near You: Religious Male Circumcision
Fool Me Twice: Zubik v. Burwell and the Perils of Judicial Faith in Government Claims
SCOTUSBlog Symposium: A soft landing at the Supreme Court
Believers, Thinkers, and Founders: How We Came to Be One Nation Under God
In Believers, Thinkers and Founders: How We Came to be One Nation Under God, Kevin Seamus Hasson—founder and president emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious liberty—offers a refreshing resolution to the age-old dispute surrounding the relationship of religion and state: a return to first principles.
“The traditional position,” writes Hasson, “is that our fundamental human rights—including those secured by the First Amendment—are endowed to us by the Creator and that it would be perilous to permit the government ever to repudiate that point.” America has steadfastly taken the position that there is a Supreme Being who is the source of our rights and the author of our equality. It has repeated that point for well over two hundred years throughout all branches and levels of government.
Never mind, says the secularist challenge. God is, to put it mildly, religious. Religion has no place in Government. So God has no place in Government. It’s just that simple.
But for the government to say there is no creator who endows us with rights, Hasson argues, “is to do more than simply tinker with one of the most famous one-liners in history; it is to change the starting point of our whole explanation of who we are as Americans.”
He proposes a solution straight from the founding: the government acknowledges the existence of God who is the source of our rights philosophically but not religiously. This idea of the “Philosophers’ God” is a conception of God based not on faith but on reason. Hasson suggests that by recognizing the distinction between the creator of the Declaration of Independence and the God of our faith traditions, we may be able to move past the culture wars over religion that have plagued the country.
In Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, Hasson examines the idea of the “Philosophers’ God” while looking at a host of issues—including the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer at public events, and prayer in public schools—as he demonstrates how we can still be one nation under God.
Free Speech and Public Order Exceptions: A Case for the U.S. Standard
On Resolving Church Property Disputes
Are Houses of Worship “Houses” under the Third Amendment?
Provocative Speech in French Law: A Closer Look at Charlie Hebdo
Public Order and Public Morality: Uses and Abuses of the Legal Limits on Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Religious Freedom in America: Constitutional Roots and Contemporary Challenges
The Affordable Care Act Employer Mandate Cases: Regulation versus Conscience on its Way to the United States Supreme Court, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion
Free Speech and Censorship Around the Globe
Town of Greece v. Galloway: The Establishment Clause and the Rediscovery of History
Intragroup Discourse on Intragroup Protections in Muslim-Majority Countries
Lemon, Marsh, and Refounding Establishment Clause Jurisprudence
The Case for Religious Exemptions — Whether Religion Is Special or Not
Evolution Toward Neutrality: Evolution Disclaimers, Establishment Jurisprudence Confusions, and a Proposal of Untainted Fruits of a Poisonous Tree
State Responses to Minority Religions
Rethinking the “Red Line”: The Intersection of Free Speech, Religious Freedom, and Social Change
The First Amendment: Religious Freedom For All, Including Muslims
The Constitutional Right Not to Participate in Abortions: Roe, Casey, and the Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Healthcare Providers
Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA
God and the Profits: Is There Religious Liberty for Money-Makers?
The Future of Religious Freedom
The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America
In the running debate we call the “culture wars,” there exists a great feud over religious diversity. One side demands that only their true religion be allowed in the public square; the other insists that no religions ever belong there. The Right to Be Wrong offers a solution, drawing its lessons from a series of stories–both contemporary and historical–that illustrates the struggle to define religious freedom. The book concludes that freedom for all is guaranteed by the truth about each of us: Our common humanity entitles us to freedom–within broad limits–to follow what we believe to be true as our consciences say we must, even if our consciences are mistaken. Thus, we can respect others’ freedom when we’re sure they’re wrong. In truth, they have the right to be wrong.