The Enduring Influence of Christian Thought on Ethical and Political Decision-Making in
Contemporary America
Vanessa Taylor
John W. Rawlings School of Divinity, Liberty University
Abstract
This study analyzes how Christian worldviews permeate ethical and political debates in the
American public sphere. It examines how Christian ideas have influenced contemporary debates
on religious liberty, social justice, and public order. It concludes that Christian theological ideas
are essential to the moral principles underlying political discourse concerning human dignity,
conscience protection, and the common good. Nonetheless, it finds that tensions arise from
differing interpretations of Christianity, as well as from the opposition between religious and
secular treatments of justice. The selectivity of rights created by Christian nationalism, differing
political theologies among South and North American Christians, and the controversies
surrounding the role of religious values in pluralistic democracy create opposing forces in
today's political divisions. This paper argues that recognizing such forces will facilitate a deeper
understanding of contemporary political divisions. It suggests more work in theorizing the right
pipelines between political problems and issues and doctrinal beliefs in order to balance
religious convictions with democratic principles.
Keywords: Christian worldview, religious liberty, social justice, public policy, Christian
nationalism, pluralism
2
Table of Contents
Section Page
Abstract 2
Introduction 4
Religious Freedom and Conscience 4
Christian Influence on First Amendment Rights 5
Social Justice and Welfare 5
Cultural Tension: Faith-Based Advocacy and Secular Justice 6
Christian Engagement in Public Policy 6
Balance Between Personal Freedoms and the Common Good 7
Discussion and Analysis 7
Conclusion 8
Annotated Bibliography 9
3
The Influence of Christian Worldview on Ethical and Political Decision-Making in
Contemporary America
In contemporary society, ethical and political decision-making often reflects deeper
philosophical and theological commitments. Among these, Christian thought has played a
particularly influential role in fashioning the public mind and policy matters in various cultures
and governments. The Christian worldview extends beyond the heart to the head, aiming to
establish an overarching system for understanding not only how we are to believe privately but
also how we must act publicly in accordance with these beliefs. It is about more than just
private morality; it is about public duty, justice, and the rule of law. The focus of this research
inquiry is the influence of Christian worldview principles on the processes of ethical and
political decisionmaking in relation to three issues of paramount importance: understanding
and implementing the concepts of religious freedom, social justice, and public policy formation.
Questions of the dignity of human life, conscience protection, and the common good are
central to both political discourse and biblical teaching.
Moreover, the research thesis for this study posits that there is a profound influence of
the Christian worldview on the processes of ethical and political decision-making in the public
arena by means of establishing the focus on the biblical understanding of human dignity as the
guiding reference for social justice efforts, framing religious liberty discussions as the need to
protect conscience and organized worship of the faithful, and infusing morality as a guiding
principle for public order and decision-making that epitomizes a search for the balance
between individual rights and the common good of the society. By examining these areas, this
paper demonstrates the enduring impact of Christian thought on modern ethical and political
life.
Religious Freedom and Conscience
The First Amendment framework illustrates that religious freedom is a primary concern in
American constitutional design, but a dispute remains over its precise meaning. This is due to a
key issue revolving around the tension between God's will and the power of the state. Christian
theology has been wrestling with this issue ever since the days of the apostles.
Professor Paulsen (2013) argues that the right to religious freedom can be justified as a
constitutional principle and has meaning for legal practice only to the extent one believes in a
deity who both exists and demands human action, and that God's demands are above those of
the state. Religious freedom, instead of autonomy, exists because people seeking the "truth"
about God's demands cannot have interference from the state in what are quintessential
questions. Secular theorizing based on diverse autonomy is distinct and important because it
alters the nature of the claims made regarding the right to religious freedom.
Studies reveal empirical evidence that commitment to Christianity influences people's beliefs
about religious liberty. However, the influence is indirect. Guth et al. (2006) found that highly
4
religious, conservative Christians prioritize moral norms and social order over liberty in the
context of civil rights for conflicting groups. The finding indicates a key contradiction that can be
found. That is, highly religious Christians can uphold belief in liberty of religious freedom, but
subsequently can prioritize positions that will limit the same liberty for opposing groups and
other minorities.
Bellah's (1967) concept of civil religion adds another dimension. Americans have historically
blended patriotism and religious devotion, creating a quasi-religious civic culture with its own
rituals and symbols. This civil religion draws heavily on Christian imagery while remaining
sufficiently generic to accommodate diverse adherents. The result is a political culture where
Christian language permeates public discourse even among non-Christians.
Christian Influence on First Amendment Rights
Recent scholarship suggests the relationship between Christian identity and constitutional rights
support has become increasingly selective and ideologically inflected. Campbell and Putnam
(2010) identify three changes that have occurred since the 1960s: declining rates of religious
participation, the emergence of the Religious Right, and a waning of attachment to organized
religion among younger Americans. These changes have been associated with sharper
polarization, but increasing rates of intermarriage and bridging have also led to more
unexpected forms of tolerance.
Davis et al. (2024) demonstrate how Christian nationalism, which views a conservative religious
ethnocultural group as central to America's identity, influences rights beliefs. Individuals with
high levels of Christian nationalism exhibit more agreement with rights beliefs supporting gun
ownership, Christian religious freedom, and states' rights, and less agreement with freedom of
speech, press rights, and fair trial rights. Christian nationalism is the most significant predictor
of an understanding that voting is a privilege, not a right.
Overall, the implications of these findings reflect a concerning selectivity in rights advocacy that
is ultimately hierarchical and not protective of universal rights. This is in direct opposition to the
earlier Christian civil rights advocacy that motivated balance-extending reforms. Unlike the civil
rights movement that emphasized Black Christian theology in advocating for protections
against racial hierarchy and classism, which arguably balanced power away from the
conventional order, the current Christian nationalism seems more committed to the established
order than prophetic opposition.
Social Justice and Welfare
Christianity and welfare policy have had their own strains on history, stemming from the clash
of different religious interpretations. Martin (2010) explains that Calvin's idea of predestination
and the Protestant work ethic were instigated through Reformed theology. It bred the idea that
poverty is often associated with success, implying that the success of specific individuals on
earth could mean they are the chosen ones. This created a theological underpinning for poverty
to be perceived as ungodliness and paved the way for the minimal, punitive relief of the poor.
5
In contrast, Jane Addams’ Settlement House movement shows that the stream of Christian
social thought was not uniform. The proponents of the social gospel drew on other biblical
materials, such as Jesus' concern for the poor and the prophetic calls against injustice, to
support their insistence on structural diagnosis and compassionate care. Such alternative
structures have permeated the welfare wars of the present.
The Rieffers' (2006) study shows how Catholic social teaching (after the Second Vatican Council)
contributed to the formation of human dignity as a central political idea. It further explains that
this religious belief has prompted Christians to support democracy, economic rights, and the
defense of the interests of the disadvantaged worldwide.
Robert's (2024) scholarship demonstrates that the civil rights movement is a significant example
of Christians advocating for social justice and effecting change in the United States. Through
Roberts' analysis, we see that by mid-century, the increasing emphasis on the role of religious
freedom in American jurisprudence made it possible for the civil rights movement to succeed
effectively. The movement's leaders, such as Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., articulated the
sinfulness of segregation using a biblical narrative and the idea of human dignity, which gave
the civil rights movement its moral power.
In addition, Todd et al. (2013) share a more recent perspective on social justice views among
Christians. They identify standard but varying definitions of social justice, such as ensuring
fundamental necessities, reorganizing systemic structures, advocating for human rights, and
fulfilling religious obligations. Among other things, participants' dissatisfaction with the
insufficient social justice efforts undertaken by their congregations is highlighted, along with
their optimism towards the Churches' activities.
Cultural Tension: Faith-Based Advocacy and Secular Justice
Hunter's (1991) "culture wars" framework offers critical insights into the current-day conflicts
between faith and secular models. Hunter (1991) diagnosed a fundamental polarization of
orthodox religious worldviews, rooted in transcendent moral authority, and progressive
worldviews, which see morality as a moving target. The competing worldviews give rise to
conflicts in several areas, with each camp perceiving the other as an existential threat. Hunter
contends that these worldviews inform ongoing battles over key public issues—such as
abortion, school prayer, LGBTQ+ rights, and education—by providing rival systems of moral
understanding that shape policies and public discourse. His work documents how these
divisions increasingly cut across conventional religious, denominational, and even political
boundaries, bringing together conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and Orthodox
Jews in new alliances against liberal or progressive voices, even within their own faith
traditions.
Another critical contribution that can be made is through Niebuhr's (1932) distinctions of
individual and collective morality. Niebuhr thought that individuals could be altruistic in their
intentions, but that collective groups always acted out of self-interest and were vulnerable to
forms of group egoism. He rejected the moral optimism of both religious and secular liberalism,
6
which believed in the nearness of moral progress. He asserted that even achieving a semblance
of justice would become a power and political issue.
This tension has been played out in recent discussions about the delivery of faith-based social
services. The provision for Charitable Choice, as outlined in a research summary by Cnaan and
Boddie (2002), discusses and promotes government funding of religious entities that provide
welfare assistance to their clients. Supporters have claimed that faith-based organizations can
make unique contributions by providing moral formation to their clients and fostering a sense
of community connectedness. Critics have expressed concern regarding religious coercion as
well as discrimination.
The classical liberal theory, as represented by Rawls (1993), argues that political choices should
be based on shared public reasons that are open to all citizens, rather than on specific religious
beliefs. In contrast, religious adherents often feel that it is an additional unjustified demand that
entails the rejection of their most foundational beliefs in the public sphere.
Christian Engagement in Public Policy
Responses to the question of how Christians should participate in democratic politics, given
religious pluralism, vary widely. A moderate response is articulated by Orr (2007), who believes
that Christians should not seek to impose their views coercively on others; however, they
should also not refrain from speaking out on issues rooted in their moral beliefs. Instead, they
should take an active role in public debate, but respect the results of the democratic process.
However, Lindsay's (2007) work on evangelical elites suggests that the actual picture is much
more complex. Elite evangelical leaders are also highly placed and exhibit a significant degree of
theological and ideological diversity. The effort to achieve legitimacy with secular peers often
results in a pragmatic form of accommodation that can come at the expense of traditional
commitments.
The study by Joireman (2009) compares seven Christian traditions, providing insight into the
variations in approaches to politics resulting from different religious belief systems.
Commonalities in perspective on the sinfulness of man and the need for limited government are
evident across the traditions, but distinctions are also found in the institutions' stances on
church and state and the forms of political participation deemed appropriate.
Balance Between Personal Freedoms and the Common Good
The problem of balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of the community to which
they belong is a timeless issue that recent Christian political theory attempts to address through
various approaches. Hooton (2021) presents a case for an essentially Christological approach to
the common good, grounded in Bonhoeffer's theological reflections, which locate it in the
essence of a personal being, created for the community and directed toward Christ.
However, the concrete application of principles of the common good to policy issues is fraught
with ambiguity and controversy. While the Christian faith upholds the principles of individual
7
dignity, requiring respect for personal agency and social responsibility that encompasses
accountability for society's well-being, it does not offer much clarity on how to define specific
policy outcomes.
These conflicts have become more explicit during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly with
public health policies that limited both religious gatherings and individual mobility. There was a
clear split among Christians regarding whether the restrictions represented an appropriate
safeguarding of the common good or an inappropriate overreach by the state.
Discussion and Analysis
The existing literature shows that the mechanisms of Christian worldview influence are varied
and its effects are multi-layered and potentially contradictory. Instead of a coherent effect of
Christian influence, the data suggest that dissimilar Christian political theologies are producing
contested policy agendas. However, they are united by fundamental commitments to human
dignity, transcendent moral authority, and a responsibility toward the community.
Overall, three significant findings are presented. First, it is demonstrated that Christian ideas
provide substantial moral arguments that are useful both for defending existing structures and
for the prophetic critique of injustice. Thus, the civil rights movement and American Christian
nationalism constructively appeal to the Christian tradition despite pursuing diametrically
different aims. Second, the tensions between various Christian denominations, as well as the
tensions between secular and Christian frameworks, offer critical sources of contemporary
political violence. Third, the particular conception of rights associated with Christian
nationalism poses the problem of whether one's religious beliefs are beneficial or deleterious to
democratic principles and values.
It is thus inevitable to ask whether Christian influence inspires or impedes the effective
functioning of democracy and the pursuit of social justice. The tentative answer seems to be:
"both, depending on which variants of Christian theology are more influential." When Christian
involvement in political and social life is rooted in its prophetic traditions, which emphasize
social justice for the oppressed and marginalized and uphold universal human dignity, it tends
to foster a democratic society. When, instead, it gets intertwined with ethno-nationalism or
seeks to secure an allegedly existing privilege, it undermines democratic development.
According to this interview, the determining factor is not Christian influence in general, but
which kind of Christian theology is most salient. The liberationist, social gospel, and prophetic
traditions have provided theologies that offer resources for the politics of justice. Christendom
models and civil religion are more easily mobilized in support of status quo defense and
nationalist exclusion.
Conclusion
This research examined the impact of Christian worldview principles on contemporary ethical
and political decisions regarding religious liberty, social justice, and public policy development.
The findings from this research are several. First, Christian theological commitments provide
8
robust resources for articulating religious liberty as a component of conscience protection in
the face of state overreach. Second, Christian nationalism is a problematic fusion that engages
in selective rights discourse that is power maintaining. Third, the competing Christian
approaches to social justice represent fundamentally different theological positions, resulting in
divided preferences regarding welfare policies. Fourth, the culture war polarization
phenomenon results in acute conflict over issues that are perceived as vital to ultimate
meaning. Fifth, the different Christian traditions provide different engagement options.
These findings support the thesis that Christian worldview significantly shapes ethical and
political decision-making by grounding social justice approaches in biblical conceptions of
human dignity, framing religious liberty debates around conscience protection, and informing
policymaking through moral principles balancing individual rights with common good. However,
these influences operate through competing theological frameworks that fragment Christian
political witness.
Nevertheless, these influences are found in competing theological paradigms that further the
disjointedness of Christian political witness. They raise practical issues about the nature of
democratic citizenship and the role of religion in pluralistic communities. For Christians to
engage politically in a healthy way, they must regard partisan attachments with prophetic
distance, recognize theological disagreements, cultivate complex political theologies that honor
both religious conviction and democratic pluralism, focus on universal human dignity, and
sincerely engage in dialogue across ultimate commitments.
The future impact of Christian theology on political
choices in America will be determined by the prevailing
theological resources and the way they are utilized. The
Christian tradition has both a prophetic critique that
promotes justice and an ideological defense that protects
privilege. It presents a universalistic recognition of the
dignity of the human being and rejects tribalism, with its
emphasis on the rejection of "others." The political
involvement of Christians determines the trend that will
prevail, their interpretative efforts, and their witnesses of
faith in a pluralistic democracy.
9
Annotated Bibliography
Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21. Bellah (1967) explains
how Americans often treat patriotism and national traditions almost like a religion,
with rituals, symbols, and shared beliefs. This “civil religion” helps unify the country
but also shapes how public life connects with religious values. This work is useful for
showing how religion—whether explicitly Christian or culturally adapted—shapes
public life and political unity. It supports the thesis by illustrating how religious
frameworks influence civic values and national ethics.
Campbell, D. E., & Putnam, R. D. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(2), 279–281.
Campbell and Putnam (2010), provide a comprehensive look at the changing landscape
of religion in America, using major national surveys and detailed congregational profiles.
The authors identify three major shifts in American religious life since the 1960s: a sharp
decline in religious observance, a conservative religious reaction spawning the Religious
Right, and a recent trend of young people distancing themselves from organized religion
—resulting in increased polarization between religious conservatives and secular
liberals. The authors find that interfaith relationships, rising intermarriage, and
increasingly fluid religious identities have fostered a surprising degree of religious
tolerance and mutual respect, even amid ongoing "culture wars". The article attributes
America's rich web of interfaith connections for making it a force for unity and social
harmony.
Cnaan, R. A., & Boddie, S. C. (2002). Charitable choice and faith-based welfare: A call for social
work. Social Work, 47(3), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/47.3.224
Cnaan & Boddie (2002) examines the impact of the Charitable Choice provision, part of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which encourages states to involve faith-
10
based and community organizations in federally funded welfare services. The article
states that many social workers are unfamiliar with Charitable Choice and its significant
implications for society and the social work profession, as it opens the door to mixing
religion with publicly supported social services. The authors review how this legislation
has shifted the government’s engagement with faith-based groups, analyze public
discourse and research regarding its relevance and implementation, and discuss
potential benefits, challenges, and ethical concerns. They call on social workers to
become more informed and involved in shaping policies and practices related to
Charitable Choice, ensuring that both the unique value of faith-based services and the
principles of pluralism and non-coercion are upheld.
Davis, J. T., Perry, S. L., & Grubbs, J. B. (2024). Liberty for us, limits for them: Christian
nationalism and Americans’ views on citizens’ rights. Sociology of Religion, 85(1), 60–82.
https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srac044
Davis, Perry & Grubbs (2024) propose that a pervasive ideology that centers
conservative religious ethno-culture within America’s deep story and future—Christian
nationalism—plays a central role in shaping how Americans evaluate “rights.” Analyses
drawn from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults show Christian nationalism
is a leading predictor that Americans prioritize gun rights, religious freedom, and states’
rights, but deprioritize freedom of speech, the press, right to a speedy and fair trial, and
protection from unlawful searches or seizures. Further analyses indicate Christian
nationalism is the strongest predictor that Americans view voting as a privilege, not a
right. The article suggest Christian nationalism may incline Americans to support rights
more suited to the continuance of the current social order and maintenance of power
structures, while also making them less likely to support rights traditionally associated
with challenging these structures.
Guth, J. L., Green, J. C., Kellstedt, L. A., & Smidt, C. E. (2006). Religion and American public
opinion: The case of civil liberties. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 323–335.
https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900302
Guth et.al (2006) explore how Christian commitments shape attitudes toward civil
liberties and offer detailed analysis of the intersection between religious worldviews and
public opinion on key democratic rights. They find that devout Christians, especially
conservative ones, are often less supportive of expanding civil liberties for groups they
11
disagree with. Strong religious commitment tends to prioritize moral standards and
stability over tolerance, though opinions vary across Christian communities. The article
highlights a tension within the Christian worldview’s influence on politics: while it
defends moral principles and social order, it can also challenge liberal expansions of
rights.
Hauerwas, W. (1981). A community of character: Toward a constructive Christian social ethic.
University of Notre Dame Press.
Hauerwas (1981) contends that Christian communities are called to embody distinct
moral practices, presenting a way of life that influences public ethics as well as personal
spirituality. His work supports the thesis by showing that Christian moral convictions
provide a framework for ethical decision-making in society. He emphasizes that biblical
teachings on community and virtue extend into social and political life, shaping
collective values and public engagement. This is significant because it highlights how the
Christian worldview actively informs cultural and political debates, reinforcing the idea
that many political disagreements are ultimately rooted in competing moral and ethical
perspectives.
Hooton, P. (2021). The common good and the orientation toward Christ.
International Journal of Public Theology, 15(1), 25-41.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15697320-12341640
Hooton (2021) holds the notion of the common good, for all its imprecision, to be
nonetheless importantly, and demonstrably, more than the sum of its variously described
parts. He explores some historical and contemporary understandings of the common
good before proposing an holistic and essentially Christological approach, rooted in a
responsible and participatory account of being drawn principally from Dietrich
Bonhoeffer’s theology.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. Basic
Books
Hunter (1991) introduces the concept of “culture wars” as a central conflict in
contemporary public life. The book analyzes how American society has become polarized
between two opposing worldviews: a traditional, orthodox perspective rooted in religious
and absolute moral truth, and a progressive, modern outlook that sees morality as
evolving and shaped by reason and experience. Hunter contends that these worldviews
inform ongoing battles over key public issues—such as abortion, school prayer, LGBTQ+
12
rights, and education—by providing rival systems of moral understanding that shape
policies and public discourse. Hunter’s work documents how these divisions increasingly
cut across conventional religious, denominational, and even political boundaries, bringing
together conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and Orthodox Jews in new
alliances against liberal or progressive voices, even within their own faith traditions. The
author concludes that the “culture wars” are struggles to define America’s fundamental
moral identity, with both sides seeking to assert the primacy of their own vision in
shaping the nation’s laws, policies, and collective sense of the good life.
Joireman, S. F. (2009). Church, state, and citizen : Christian approaches to political engagement.
Oxford University Press.
Joireman (2009) brings together political scientists who explore how different Christian
traditions have interacted with government and politics. The study looks at seven
traditions—Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Anglican, Evangelical, and
Pentecostal—and explains how their history and beliefs shape their views on the role of
the church in society, government, and civic life; highlighting where these traditions
agree, such as recognizing human weakness, the need for limited government, and the
idea that politics cannot solve everything. Also showing where they differ in theology
and politics.
Lindsay, D. M. (2007). Faith in the halls of power: Religious identity and elite decision-making.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(3), 273–288.
Lindsay (2007) investigates how religious identity shapes the decision-making processes
of social and political elites in the United States. Drawing on extensive interviews with
high-profile leaders across politics, business, entertainment, and academia, Lindsay
demonstrates that evangelical Christians have gained significant influence within
American elite circles. The research reveals considerable ideological and theological
diversity among these elites, showing that they rely on flexible interpretations of faith
and frequently prioritize parachurch affiliations over denominational loyalties. The
article finds the drive for legitimacy and acceptance among secular peers often leads
evangelical leaders to adopt pragmatic approaches in their professional environments,
sometimes at the cost of deep-rooted tradition or local church ties. Ultimately, the
findings indicate that, while religious beliefs continue to inform ethical and policy
decisions, elite evangelicals tend to balance faith commitments with broader social and
institutional pressures, raising important questions about the renewal or
accommodation of religious influence in public life.
Martin, M. E. (2010). Philosophical and religious influences on social welfare policy in the United
States: The ongoing effect of Reformed theology and social Darwinism on attitudes
toward the poor and social welfare policy and practice. Journal of Social Work, 12(1), 51-
64.
13
Martin (2010) explores the historical and contemporary philosophical and religious
influences of social welfare policy and programs in the United States. A discussion of
Weber's critique of Calvin's Reformed theology and the profound influence of Calvin's
Reformed theology, including the concept of predestination and the Protestant work
ethic, as well as the influence of Spencer's social Darwinism on US social policy.
Elements of early ideological bias that reflected the moral failure of the poor are
discussed with regard to early poor care and the Charity Organization Society movement
and are contrasted with the more pragmatic and compassionate approach of Jane
Addams's Settlement House movement.
McGraw, B., & Wright, C. (2015). Religious liberty and the American political tradition. Journal of
Church and State, 57(1), 1–21
McGraw & Wright (2015), trace the history of religious liberty debates in the U.S. They
explain how Christian ideas helped shape laws and court rulings, while also showing the
ongoing tension between protecting faith expression and keeping church and state
separate. This supports the thesis by illustrating how the Christian worldview has
historically framed discussions of conscience, worship, and religious freedom in
policymaking.
Niebuhr, R. (1932). Moral man and immoral society. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Niebuhr (1932) draws a clear distinction between the ethical capacities of individuals and
the collective behavior of groups, such as nations, classes, or races. He argues that while
individuals can strive toward altruism and moral ideals, groups are far more likely to act
in self-interest and are more susceptible to egoism, injustice, and irrationality. Niebuhr
critiques both secular and religious liberalism for their optimism about the possibility of
collective morality, contending that true justice in society often requires force or coercion
and that perfect moral conduct cannot be expected of social groups. He concludes that
while individual conscience may make personal selflessness possible, society must rely on
pragmatic politics, using whatever means necessary, even coercion, to approximate
justice in the real world.
Orr, R. D. (2007). The role of Christian belief in public policy. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical
Studies in Medical Morality, 13(2), 199– 209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803600701473489
Orr (2007) explores, in a pluralistic society such as the United States, it is neither
possible nor desirable for Christians to try to force their views on others. Still, the author
states it is obligatory for Christians to stand up and articulate their views in the public
square. The article contends that, “ we should try to persuade others using either
prudential or moral arguments and that while we must be willing to live with the will of
14
the people, at the same time, we must not be intimidated into accepting the position
that our voice is not valid because it has a religious basis.”
Paulsen, M. S. (2013). The priority of God: A theory of religious liberty.
Pepperdine Law Review, 39(5). https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol39/iss5/8
Professor Paulsen (2013) argues that religious freedom only makes entire sense as a
constitutional arrangement on the premise that God exists, that God makes actual
demands on human loyalty and conduct, and that those demands precede and are
superior in obligation to those of the State. Religious freedom exists to protect the
exercise of plausibly true understandings of God's actual commands, as against state
power, and to disable state power to proscribe -- or prescribe -- religious exercise. The
article explores four possible stances of society toward religious freedom, depending on
whether society and state embrace the idea of religious truth (or not) and whether
society and state embrace the idea of religious tolerance (or not). It then argues that
America's Constitution's religion clauses, in their original conception, are predicated in a
belief in the possibility of religious truth and the imperative of religious tolerance so that
the state does not interfere with private individuals' and groups' pursuit of truth. This
perspective illuminates many of the issues that have plagued interpretation of the First
Amendment religion clauses.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press
Rawls (1993) argues that in societies with diverse beliefs and values, laws and policies
should be grounded in principles that all citizens can reasonably accept, rather than
being based on specific religious doctrines. He introduces the concept of “public reason”
as a framework to ensure fairness, equality, and mutual respect in pluralistic
democracies. This approach highlights the challenge of balancing individual religious
convictions with the common good in a diverse society. For the thesis, Rawls’ work
provides an important contrast, showing how secular frameworks attempt to guide
ethical and political decision-making in ways that can accommodate multiple
worldviews, including the Christian perspective, while maintaining a fair and just public
sphere.
Rieffer, B. A. (2006). Religion, politics and human rights: Understanding the role of Christianity in
the promotion of human rights . Human Rights and Human Welfare , 6(1). Rieffer
presents a thoughtful critical essay that examines Christianity’s complex role in
promoting human rights in the modern era. Engaging theological, historical, and political
perspectives, she situates Christian activism within the broader frameworks of liberalism
and international relations, while highlighting the growing public significance of religious
voices. The essay argues that Christian organizations and values—especially those
shaped by post-Vatican II Catholicism—have been pivotal in affirming human dignity,
15
advancing democracy, and shaping a moral vision that upholds universal human rights
This article strongly supports the thesis by showing how the Christian worldview grounds
human
dignity and justice, influencing political decisions and global advocacy for rights.
Roberts, D. D. (2024). The role of Black Christian beliefs in the civil rights movement: A paradigm
for a better understanding of religious freedom. Religions, 15(5), 527.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050527
Roberts (2024) builds upon and extends Christian and legal scholarship on the civil rights
movement by illuminating a climate of religious freedom that served as a catalyst for
and was integral to the success of the spirited activism of the civil rights
movement(CRM). The article states, scholars have not extensively considered how the
expansion of religious freedom in church and state jurisprudence both directly and
indirectly created a climate that contributed to the success of the CRM, and how
advancements in civil rights impacted the broader revolution occurring in constitutional
rights. The article addresses the climate of religious freedom including court support for
evangelizing in residentially exclusive areas, exemptions for conscientious opposers from
participating in oath swearing and other ceremonies, and exemptions from other
general laws that unduly inhibited the free exercise of religious rights.
Todd, N. R., & Rufa, A. K. (2013). Social justice and religious participation: A qualitative
investigation of Christian perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51,
315–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9552-4
Todd et al. (2013) examine how self-identified Christians in the Midwest U.S. understand
and work for social justice, with a focus on their process of social justice development
and the role of religious congregations in promoting social justice. Using a grounded
theory analysis of 15 in-depth interviews, results indicated multiple understandings of
social justice such as meeting basic needs, fixing social structures and systems to create
equal distributions of resources, promoting human rights and dignity, and as a religious
responsibility. Participants also described a process of social justice development
facilitated by exposure to injustice, mentors, educating others, and the importance of
finding a social justice community. Distinct personal barriers to social justice engagement
were identified such as resources and negative emotions, whereas congregational
leadership was important for congregational involvement. General frustration with
congregations was expressed regarding low social justice engagement; however,
participants balanced this frustration with hope for the positive potential of
congregations to promote social justice.
16
Woodberry, R. D., & Smith, C. S. (1998). Fundamentalism et al.: Conservative protestants in
America. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 25–56.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.25
In this article, Woodberry & Smith (1998) give an overview of conservative Protestant
beliefs and their influence on U.S. politics and culture. It shows how this group has
shaped debates over family, social issues, and political divisions, while also pointing out
the need to better define terms like “evangelical” and “fundamentalist.” This
strengthens the thesis by showing how particular Christian subgroups shape U.S.
political divisions and policymaking, demonstrating the worldview’s concrete impact on
social and cultural issues.
17
