fbpx
Search Results For:

Search Results for: social justice – Page 42

The Founders’ nuanced views of religion and politics prevent us from reading modern concerns about the separation of church and state into their words.
Unlike civil rights advocates of the 1960s, pro-life and pro-choice activists can be ambivalent about their causes because they are torn between their reason and their sentiments.
We should pass Unborn Child Protection Acts and begin the conversation about the pain of the unborn.
Given the legal principles involved in recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages, it’s hard to see any coherence in President Obama’s statement.
Virtuous citizenship requires building moral consensus across religious and cultural divides. The third in a three-part series.
The largely forgotten history of evangelical political activism forces us to re-evaluate the rights and wrongs of the Religious Right movement. The second in a three-part series.
The legacy of the great Protestant schism a century ago continues to hinder evangelicals from finding satisfactory ways to participate in America’s civic order. The first in a three-part series.
The libertarian commitment to free markets and limited government is best preserved within a broader conservative context.
Libertarians and conservatives should not allow their differences to impede political cooperation against the common adversary: egalitarian liberalism.
Libertarianism offers the best defense of individual rights that government can employ.
Conservatives value individual liberty as much as libertarians, but they deny that freedom from coercion is the only form of liberty.
Social activists opposed to the use of HEK-293—a kidney cell line derived from an aborted baby—in PepsiCo products should not respond with shareholder activism, because it wreaks political and economic havoc.
Not all discrimination is wrong. While the government should regulate some forms of wrongful discrimination, other forms of discrimination lie beyond the purview of the state.
Libertarians are being taken in by rhetoric that sounds libertarian but, in fact, will lead to a dramatic shift in the balance of power between the state and civil society, indeed between the state and the natural order itself.
We cannot escape the fact that marriage is an intrinsically public institution. We can’t avoid making collective decisions about its meaning and purpose. If we don’t do it explicitly, we will end up doing it implicitly.
Libertarianism and conservatism are often lumped together, but there are fundamental differences between the two philosophies that make them incompatible.
The commitment to educate special needs children was one of the most laudable education policy achievements of the twentieth century and it must be protected.
The law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny.
Many expect that the Supreme Court will soon overturn the traditional marriage laws remaining on the books in forty-three states, a prospect that would have been unthinkable only a decade or two ago. What happened?
Lawmakers must look past the “equality versus religious freedom” standoff, and consider the substantive merits of each particular case.
Neither liberal nor libertarian, a principled conservative way of helping the poor.
It’s time to end the corporate income tax: it strains job-creating businesses, punishes workers rather than capital owners, encourages wealthy companies to find loopholes in the tax system, and allows some of the richest among us to pay strangely low personal income tax rates.
The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.
39 years ago, the Supreme Court delivered a radical, legally untenable, immoral decision. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the people.