Professor Calhoun, in his Article around which this
symposium is based, has asserted that it is permissible for citizens
to publicly argue for laws or public policy solutions based on
explicitly religious reasons. Calhoun candidly admits that he has
“long grappled” with this question (as have I, though he for longer),
and, in probably the biggest understatement in this entire
symposium, notes that Professor Kent Greenawalt identified this
as “a particularly significant, debatable, and highly complex
problem.” Is it ever. I have a position that I will advance in this
article, but I wish to acknowledge at the outset that this is a
difficult and complicated issue. It intersects with issues of
constitutional law, theology, political theory, jurisprudence,
philosophy, law and morality—and that’s just off the top of my
head. As soon as one issue is addressed, twelve others raise their
head and confound. I am also mindful that Professor Calhoun has
been grappling with this issue for far longer than I have. I respect
him and his thoughtful treatment of this issue immensely. Part of
my trepidation in addressing this subject is that, as will be seen in
this response, Professor Calhoun once held a very similar opinion
on this issue as me. However, he has evolved beyond it, whereas
I (to date) have not. The structure of this online symposium is that
Professor Calhoun will have a chance to respond in writing to the
points I make in this Article, and I will then have the opportunity
to reflect and respond to his reply. I look forward to the exchange,
and I know that I will be enriched for having participated in the
dialogue.