Philosophy of Religion and Politics 5th annual • Weatherford College • Friday & Saturday, April 21-22

Welcome

In American history (if not history in general) few topics are as divisive and at the same time unifying as the question of what role religion does and should play in public life. There is little doubt that throughout history many governments (including ours) have held that religion plays an important role in society. But in a pluralistic society, what is the nature of that role? What affect should religion have on politics and vice versa? On the heels of the midterms and the eve of another presidential election cycle, Weatherford College is pleased to host the fifth annual Philosophy of Religion Conference on the theme “Philosophy of Religion and Politics.” This weekend, we will enjoy lectures from students and scholars as well as two keynote lectures in our Ben Arbour Memorial Lecture Series from Francis Beckwith.

My thanks to the Weatherford College administration for recognizing the potential an academic event such as this holds for our community of educators and students, and agreeing to fund this year’s conference. I also appreciate the support and encouragement of the greater Weatherford community including her faculty, staff, and students. Of particular note are President Farmer; Mike Endy, Vice President of Workforce Education; Alex Ibe, Acting Executive Vice President of Academic Services; Scott Tarnowieckyi, Assistant Vice President of Student Services; for past and present support, administrative assistants, Sandra Kurosky, Dana Orban, and Debbie Alexander; Dana Brewer and my other colleagues in the Humanities Department as well as those colleagues in my office bay. Chelsea Cochran and Katie Edwards from the graphics department, and all of the other support staff from the Business office to Public Relations to Graphic Design . . . you all have my deepest, heartfelt thanks. Thanks also to Major Perk for generously providing this weekend's coffee. My hope with this conference remains the same it has always been, to be able to host a respectable conference on a timely topic that would showcase the often overlooked role of academics at a primarily two year institution. Once again, Weatherford College has been given the opportunity to show that not only are such academic endeavors possible at an institution such as ours, but also that they can provide the means for a community college to add its diverse voice to a conversation taking place in the broader academic community. I hope you enjoy this weekend, taking advantage of the opportunity to listen and participate in that conversation.

- Gregory E. Trickett, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Philosophy

Registration and Pricing

Conference registration for Weatherford College faculty, staff, and students are free. Registration is still required (Weatherford College registrants may be required to show their school ID at the conference registration table).

Registration for non-Weatherford attendees will be $40.

In addition to the paper presentations and plenary sessions, there will be a Q & A dinner featuring our keynote speaker and some of our presenters at the close of the conference on Saturday. The dinner will be held at a local restaurant and will be self-pay.

SCHEDULE • 2023 CONFERENCE

Friday, April 21

• 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. : Registration & Coffee
• 2 p.m. - 2:50 p.m. : Parallel Session I
• 3 p.m. - 3:50 p.m. : Parallel Session II
• 4 p.m. - 4:50 p.m. : Parallel Session III
• 5 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. : Dinner on your own
• 6:45 p.m. - 8 p.m. : Arbour Memorial Lecture Series (Plenary Session I)

Saturday, April 22

• 8 a.m. - 9 a.m. : Coffee and Registration
• 9 a.m. - 9:50 a.m. : Parallel Session IV
• 10 a.m. - 10:50 a.m. : Parallel Session V
• 11 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. : Parallel Session VI
• 12 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. : Lunch on your own
• 1:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m. : Arbour Memorial Lecture Series (Plenary Session II)
• 3 p.m. - 3:50 p.m. : Parallel Session VII
• 4 p.m. - 4:50 p.m. : Parallel Session VIII
• 5:30 p.m. - 7 p.m. : Q&A Dinner at Shep’s

Friday, April 21

1 P.M. - 2 P.M. : REGISTRATION & COFFEE

2 P.M. - 2:50 P.M. : PARALLEL SESSION I

"Gottschalk of Orbais: Child Oblation and the Benedictine Monastic Order"

ACAD - 109

Richard Chelvan, Weatherford College

Abstract: Gottschalk, born about 803-804, was given by his father as child oblate to the monastery of Fulda, a missionary post run by the Franks to convert the Saxons. He was made an oblate unwillingly and his inheritance was given to the monastery. Gottschalk was unhappy with monastic life. When appeals for release from his monastic status were refused by the head of the Fulda monastery, Gottschalk appealed to the Council of Mainz in June of 829. At the Council, Gottschalk made a twofold petition based on three technical points of law. He appealed to natural law, monastic law, and Saxon law. His case was seen by some as both an attack on the system of child oblation, which was important for bringing new members to the monastic order, and an attack on Frankish law by a Saxon. Gottschalk eventually suffered years of imprisonment, being labeled a heretic, even though his theological views were neither innovative nor unique among his peers. It is the intent of this paper to demonstrate that although Gottschalk was accused based on theological grounds, he was singled out for harsh punishment due to his rejection of the monastic system and its system of child oblation coupled with his social position as a Saxon in a Frankish kingdom.

"Conscientious Objection Amounts to Civil Disobedience – But Religious Insubordination Does Not"

ACAD 111

Caleb Zimmerman, Temple University student

Abstract: The consensus view holds that conscientious objection and civil disobedience are distinct concepts. But the standard factor used to distinguish the concepts – that whereas the civil disobedient is protesting or trying to change a law, the conscientious objector is not – only works if the conscientious objector can furnish a plausible means of disassociation, which is difficult to do. If the means of disassociation is an individual’s personal morality, it meets the same fate as Wittgenstein’s private language. But if it invokes public reasons, it collapses into civilly disobedient protest. Still, a plausible means of disassociation might be found in the particularist morality of certain religious or quasi-religious groups – although members of these groups are not conscientious objectors at all, and they will look more like Mennonites than Catholics or Muslims.

3 P.M. - 3:50 P.M. : PARALLEL SESSION II

“‘Setting up of Christ’s Kingdom’: Jonathan Edwards and the Kingdom of God in ‘The History of the Work of Redemption’”

ACAD 109

Zak Tharp, Ridley College student

Abstract: This paper examines kingdom and governmental language in the sermon set ‘The History of the Work of Redemption’ of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). There is significant inquiry presently into the exegetical methods of Jonathan Edwards, yet there has been little consideration of how Edwards made use of political terminology in his preaching and writings. While the addition of Jonathan Edwards Encyclopedia (2017) and The Oxford Handbook on Jonathan Edwards (2021) are welcomed volumes touching on related topics, a clear omission of these works is they lack any entry on Edwards’s view of the kingdom. Edwards’s view seems to have developed through his 1739 sermon series as he interpreted patterns of historical progress and regress of the kingdom of God in the world against the kingdom of Satan. Thus, analysis of ‘The History of the Work of Redemption’ will be explored to situate Edwards’s view of the kingdom and its theological and political implications.

"Righteous Minds: Christianity’s Unblinding Agent"

ACAD 111

Kendra Bailey, Dallas Theological Seminary student

Abstract: It is no secret in the 21st century that we exist in a society segregated by political views and isolated by computer screens. Religion and politics are not topics to be discussed in polite company, algorithms in social media flood our internet by reinforcing bias, and the “other,” the group of people unlike us, becomes increasingly distant by the day. In this landscape, modern Christian churches claim to bring together the outcast and the foreigner, but simultaneously have exhibited some of the most shocking degrees of disunity. Does religion contribute to society’s increasing polarization? How, if at all, is it possible that religious affiliations can remedy this division? Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues in his book, The Righteous Mind, that perhaps one reason we are so divided is that religion tends to “bind and blind” its adherents—that is, it causes us to identify holistically with our fellow believers’ moral values and overlook their moral shortcomings contributing to an increase in polarization. However, through responding to Haidt’s analysis and examining religion’s role in cultural evolution, I will argue that the call of Christ is necessarily one of un-blinding and un-binding. Christians are not commanded to be an insular group, but are called to look outward and bridge cultural divisions in a way that necessarily distinguishes the hope of the Christian from the hopes of other religions.

4 P.M. - 4:50 P.M. : PARALLEL SESSION III

"Restoring the Founders' Faith: Eschewing Christian Nationalism for Separation of Church and State"

ACAD 109

Jared Stewart, Weatherford College

Abstract: A recent PRRI/Brookings survey reported that more than half of Republicans believe the United States should be recognized as a Christian nation, either adhering to or sympathizing with the views of Christian Nationalism. Christian nationalism, the belief that Christian values should guide policymaking and “being Christian” is part of “being American,” is becoming more mainstream in American politics. Is the United States a “Christian Nation” that should shape its laws according to Christian beliefs, or is this movement antithetical to what the Founders intended for religion in the political sphere? How do the tenets of Christian nationalism fit within the system of “separation of church and state” set forth by the authors of the Constitution? This talk will address the Founders’ belief in religious pluralism and the establishment of religious liberty in the United States, the views of Christian nationalism and the current American incarnation, and the policy implications for the ascension of those who hold these views to positions of power.

“On Disagreeing Well"

ACAD 111

Rebecca Carlson, University of Southern California student

Abstract: We humans are really terrible at talking with people on the other side of issues we care about: abortion, race relations, pretty much any contested political or religious question you can name. We tend to end up either yelling at each other or just not talking with each other at all. But I will argue that that doesn’t have to be. I’ll propose an approach to dialogue consisting of several habits that come out of valuing truth, valuing people, and valuing clarity. I’ll argue that this approach is extremely effective at cultivating genuine, mutually respectful, productive dialogue—even with people on the other side who are combative at the start of the conversation—and also that it's ethically the right approach to have anyway.

5 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. : DINNER ON YOUR OWN

6:45 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. : ARBOUR MEMORIAL LECTURE SERIES (PLENARY SESSION I)

"Dignitatis Humanae and the Waning of Traditional Liberalism"

ACAD 106

Francis Beckwith, Baylor University

Abstract: Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (DH) was seen by many as a significant departure from the Catholic Church’s long-held magisterial teachings on religious liberty, one that moved the Church, in the eyes of some, to a view more consonant with traditional liberalism. But in recent years that liberalism has waned, being slowly supplanted by more hegemonic forms that are generally skeptical of religion’s specialness and less epistemically modest when it comes to contested cultural questions. This talk will give a summary of DH and explain how the changing understandings of religion and religious liberty pose a real challenge to the liberalism with which DH was intended to make peace.

Saturday, April 22

8 A.M. - 9 A.M. : REGISTRATION & COFFEE

9 A.M. - 9:50 A.M. : PARALLEL SESSION IV

"Character Matters and Communication"

ACAD 109

Mike Young, Faulkner University

Abstract: The development of a good character is necessary for communication to occur, including a good will. This paper presents an overview of virtue formation from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as well as some salient points drawn from the Book of Proverbs. The connection of character with good communication is made via the philosophical hermeneutics of H. G. Gadamer in which he describes the movement of the mind in coming to understanding. The need for character and a good will is then demonstrated by the famous debate between Jacques Derrida and H. G. Gadamer at the Sorbonne, Paris, in April of 1981.

"The Unholy Trinity: A Catholic-based Policy Rebuke of the Possession and Use of Nuclear Weapons"

ACAD 111

Nick Pugh, Weatherford College

Abstract: Where world governments have disagreed regarding the implications of the development, possession, and use of nuclear weapons, leaders and theologians of the world’s religions have largely remained resolute in opposition to their possession and use. However, within the United States, a stark division between Christian churches of the apostolic traditions and the evangelical traditions reflect political divisions regarding nuclear weapons. Increasing tensions between the United States, Russia, and other members of the Nuclear Club refocus world attention on the not improbable possibility of nuclear war. A renewed call to religious leaders across the globe demanding the permanent prohibition of nuclear weapons is needed to secure the sanctity of all human life and affirm the commandment to ethical stewardship of the Earth. This presentation will explain the position of the Catholic Church relative to possession and use of nuclear weapons and will offer policy recommendations based on those positions.

10 A.M. - 10:50 A.M. : PARALLEL SESSION V

"The Love of Self and the Religion of Politics"

ACAD 109

Chaz Holsomback, University of Dallas student

Abstract: This paper will offer a reading of Augustine’s City of God and suggest that our current political disfunction is the consequence of a humanity which suffers from a carcinogenic love of self. It will insist that Augustine links the love of self with the rise and proliferation of a kind of paganism that confuses the meaning of politics and religion, which continues to the present day. Because, to the extent that we have lost the distinction between the political and the religious, we have lost something proprietary in each. It is this loss, I argue, that gives rise not only to the polarization of our political conversation, but to the equal and opposite positions of pseudo-religious nationalism and pseudo-political anarchism. With this understanding, I hope to make clear how both extremes of our political partisanship—the far right and the far left—each fail to act politically, and instead devolve into something closer to pagan religious practice.

"Drug Policy and Police Reform: Fact-Based Policy in an Age of Political Idolatry"

ACAD 111

Bolek Z. Kabala, Tarleton State University

Abstract: In the 60’s, attempts by the Supreme Court to “bring down the temperature in the room” by bracketing controversial questions and making our public sphere a neutral space seem to have failed as evidenced by increased polarization and decreased participation in our civic process. Why? Building on the work of David Koyzis, we argue that America has become more polarized insofar as it has become more idolatrous. Beliefs on either side of the political debate are not merely ideological but deeply religious. How can we get back to treating public policy in a factual way, without the religious intensity? Two possibilities: on police reform, we extend the Koyzis approach by exploring how “liberal” and “conservative” reform possibilities are both partially “true” or helpful. With respect to drug policy, we consider how federalism “decreases the temperature in the room” by making it less urgent for all parties, electorally, to seize control of one national center of government. This makes us less likely to adopt extreme attitudes towards government, which can result in political idolatry.

11 A.M. - 11:50 A.M. : PARALLEL SESSION VI

"Political Polarizer or Moral Mediator? Promises and Pitfalls of Sacred Community in a Secular Age"

ACAD 109

Marilie Coetsee, University of Richmond

Abstract: Political polarization has grown dramatically in the US since the 1970s, and a wide range of studies suggest that it contributes to democratic erosion (Orhan, 2021). It has also been accompanied by a growing ‘God Gap’ between political parties: religious citizens increasingly identify with the Republican party, while secular citizens increasingly identify with the Democratic party. Political scientists now worry that the US is developing a “confessional” party system in which partisans organize around religious or secular identities (Campbell, Layman, and Green, 2021).

I argue that religious citizens may be particularly vulnerable to polarization due to the theological grounding and communal context for their moral beliefs that religious institutions afford. However, I contend that these same features of religious institutes that now contribute to polarization can, with the proper intervention, actually serve as assets in the fight against it. Religious citizens who develop the virtues of conscientious inquiry and empathetic engagement can, I argue, draw on their rich theological traditions and social capital to effectively facilitate dialogue between partisans.

"Religious Reasons for Reproductive Autonomy"

ACAD 111

Morgan Peugh, Tarleton State University student with Karl Aho, Tarleton State University

Abstract: While many religious groups celebrate the recent Dobbs decision, others object. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice affirms a theologically-informed understanding of reproductive rights. The Satanic Temple (TST)–a federally-recognized church–affirms the freedom to choose what to do with one’s body. The Dobbs decision has also prompted the creation of a new religion (not yet federally-recognized) for LGBTQIA+ people and their allies: The Church of the Prismatic Light (Prismatists). Like members of TST, Prismatists affirm bodily autonomy (though for different reasons). In this paper, we contend that the roles of these groups in politics will have an effect on debates such as those sure to emerge in the context of the 2024 elections. First, we recount each group’s understanding of reproductive rights or freedoms. Next, we compare and contrast their accounts. Then we consider scenarios in which traditional religious pro-choice, “new” pro-choice, or no religious pro-choice arguments could play a role in abortion discourse. We conclude by considering the implications of these scenarios for pro-life and pro-choice movements.

12 P.M. - 1:15 P.M. : LUNCH ON YOUR OWN

1:30 P.M. - 2:45 P.M. : ARBOUR MEMORIAL LECTURE SERIES (PLENARY SESSION II)

"Some Reflections on the "Is Religious Liberty Special?" Question"

ACAD 106

Francis Beckwith, Baylor University

Abstract: This talk addresses the question of the specialness of religious liberty. Rather than rehashing the many issues raised by Religion is Not Special (RNS) theorists, this talk has the modest goal of reacquainting us with the Two-Sovereigns Thesis (TST). In presenting TST this talk draws our attention to those aspects of conventional religions that are often ignored or downplayed by RNS theorists, even though it is those characteristics of common piety that motivated the thinking of figures like John Locke, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. This talk argues that the primary reason for this neglect is that RNS is eliminative, meaning that as an interpretative tool it eliminates from our vision those aspects of religious belief and practice that have historically set it apart from other activities.

3 P.M. - 3:50 P.M. : PARALLEL SESSION VII

“The U.S. Constitution According to Aquinas and Lock”

ACAD 109

Lauren Planer, Tarleton State University student and Alina Thicke, Tarleton State University student

Abstract: One might think that given Locke’s apparent intolerance of Catholicism and the centrality of the separation of church and state in the Constitution that the influence of Thomas Aquinas’s approach to law is largely absent from the Constitution. We will argue that the Constitution's discussion of the separation of powers as limiting each branch of government is strikingly similar to Aquinas’s account of disobeying an unjust law for the sake of obedience to a just law. We do not need to discern Locke’s personal view of natural law, nor appeal to what we know of the founding fathers’ religious beliefs–we can trace the influence of natural law in the Constitution by paying careful attention to what the founders said in that document. Given the similarities between the constitution's ‘checks and balances’ and Aquinas’s account of obedience to the laws, the Constitution may be more influenced by Aquinas’s understanding of law than readers may suspect.

“Dan Patrick, Separation of Church and State, and the Johnson Amendment: Where Do We Go From Here?”

ACAD 111

Bolek Z. Kabala, Tarleton State University with Jeffrey Harz, Tarleton State University student

Abstract: According to experts recently profiled in the Texas Tribune, both Lt. Gov Dan Patrick and Dan Patrick, as well as the churches that gave them a platform, undermined the Johnson amendment. This is ironic, as Patrick has recently joined the ranks of politicians who have called into question the very existence of separation of church and state. But what if there is evidence in the American political tradition both for separation of church and state and for the freedom of candidates to speak wherever they would like in the weeks before an election, including in houses of worship? We show that, although Patrick is wrong to claim that there is no separation of church and state, the Tribune is also misguided in not allowing that a candidate sharing convictions with a religious organization, even during a campaign season, should be protected by the 1st Amendment, even if this means that the Johnson amendment needs to be revised.

4 P.M. - 4:50 P.M. : PARALLEL SESSION VIII

“Priorities Among the Pluralities: Problems of Evil, Competing Noetic Structures, and Fides Quaerens Intellectum”

ACAD 109

Keith S. Lindley, Dallas Theological Seminary student

Abstract: In two prominent formulations of the problem of evil—those belonging to J. L. Mackie and William Rowe—the atheologian asserts that “several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.” Further complicating this matter is the alleged category of “gratuitous evil,” or “evil that is pointless, in the sense of serving no greater good, and perhaps also unredeemable, in the sense that nothing can outweigh or ‘defeat’ it.” According to Eleonore Stump, however, the atheologian has neglected a pertinent truth; namely, that “the plausibility of a theory can shift radically as the worldview against which it is judged shifts.” Consequently, by exchanging the worldview of Enlightenment Deists for that of Christian fides quaerens intellectum, the “understanding seeking faith” of the atheologian—and the problem of evil along with it—is transformed by the “faith seeking understanding” of the Christian interpretive framework.

“A Philosophical Account of the Unclean”

ACAD 111

Dennis Plaisted, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Abstract: A longstanding puzzle in Old Testament studies concerns the rationale for the purity code of Leviticus 11-15 and Numbers 19. A leading answer is that the impure things are those that reflect birth-related processes or death. According to this view, death and reproduction defile because they are unlike God, but this does not explain why things reflective of them are impure. For other states are also unlike God but do not cause impurity. I argue instead that it is a thing’s reflection of the Fall’s consequences that render it unclean. To develop this, I invoke the notion of appropriation of evil. In appropriation cases, dilemmas arise over use of objects that are closely associated with past evil actions. The impure things, I maintain, bear a strikingly similar relation to the Fall.

5:30 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. : Q & A Dinner at Shep's