Sunstone!

Next month, make sure to keep one eye on your mailbox at all times. When the March issue of Sunstone arrives, turn to page 52 and let me know what you think.

It's also time to start planning your submissions for this summer's Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium. All the cool kids are going to be there, so don't miss out!

My Mom's First Book Is Now Available for Purchase

My mother, who recently finished a PhD program in Hebrew Bible, has just published a revised and updated version of her dissertation through Wipf and Stock Publishers. The book-- titled Dust or Dew: Immortality in the Ancient Near East and in Psalm 49-- may be purchased online for $24.80. The book received several glowing endorsements, including a surprise endorsement from renowned biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann. This has been a labor of love for her, and I am very proud of her achievement. I'm certain there will be many more to come. (She already has two or three other book projects under way!)

I haven't gotten a look at the hard copy yet, but the last draft I read-- and I read several!-- argued that Psalm 49 offered one of ancient Israel's first hints of an emerging theology of blissful immortality, which eventually culminated in the full-blown resurrection theology of Second Temple Judaism. In addition to careful analysis of the Hebrew text of Psalm 49, the book includes a very sophisticated discussion of the psalm's multiple contexts. It is situated first and foremost as a ritual text composed by the Korahite clan-- apparently a group located in the northern kingdom, but with southern kingdom loyalties. The psalm is a redemption drama, and may have been intended for use in an annual Korahite pilgrimage to Zion. Dust or Dew also situates the psalm against the backdrops of other Korahite, Hebrew, and Ancient Near Eastern literature, finding particularly important contexts in Genesis 1-3 and Ugaritic texts relating to the goddess Asherah. Besides these overarching arguments, the book also provides detailed micro-level analysis of a whole range of questions, often providing important correctives to the assumptions of major thinkers in the field.

Congratulations, Mom!

The US Bill of Rights Intentionally Does NOT Guarantee Freedom of Conscience

The Bill of Rights went through a number of revisions before the text was finalized and ratified in December of 1791. The image below shows finalized text of the First and Second Amendments alongside an earlier version-- the text proposed by the House on August 24, 1789.

The purpose of this post is to highlight two closely related changes, which were very deliberate on the part of the Framers. First, the earlier text included a guarantee that "the rights of Conscience shall not be infringed." This has been struck out in the current version. Second, the earlier text guaranteed that "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." This, too has been struck out in the final text. The Bill of Rights has intentionally been purged of any guarantee of freedom of conscience.

It isn't that the Framers didn't value freedom of conscience. They did. They worried, however, about making freedom of conscience a "right". This potentially opened the door to all kinds of abuses. Anyone who wanted to avoid a civic duty or to engage in disruptive behavior could potentially claim the protection of the Constitution under the conscience clause. Furthermore, the Framers wanted to leave the state's options open in case of a severe military threat to the nation. They assumed that allowances would generally be made for conscientious objectors, but felt that indulgence of such persons should not be allowed to imperil the survival of the republic. Congressional delegate Egbert Benson stated this view in no uncertain terms: "No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of government."

What this discussion highlights, I think, is that we should not naively assume that America is a paradise of unbounded religious freedom. Freedom of religion in America has its limits, and these limits may even be necessary for civil order. In a nation of conflicting consciences, conscience must occasionally be weighed against more pressing concerns-- or so thought the Framers of the US Bill of Rights.

What do you think? Is freedom of conscience a natural right? Should that freedom be limited by the federal government? Where do we draw the line between legitimate limitation and unlawful infringement? Join the discussion in the comments below!