Religious Conservatives and the Death Penalty

With the increased fervor surrounding the death penalty, many religious sects have re-examined their position on this issue. New statistics concerning possible discrimination in the application of the death penalty prompted several religious groups to call for a moratorium on the death penalty. In this Essay, Professor Thomas C. Berg examines how religious conservatives, especially Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants, have dealt with the recent concerns over the death penalty. Part I of the Essay documents how Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants traditionally approach the death penalty. In this section, Professor Berg concludes that critics of the death penalty can use theological arguments, as well as practical concerns about the death penalty, to persuade both groups to oppose the death penalty. Part II analyzes the particular theological arguments and practical concerns that will be most effective in persuading religious conservatives to oppose the death penalty

What\u27s Right and Wrong with “No Endorsement”

Contrary to Professor Wexler, I argue that unless the endorsement test is properly understood and limited, it has the critical flaw of putting the Establishment Clause at war with the other religion guarantee of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause. If the Establishment Clause forbade government endorsement of religion in all contexts, it would undermine the government’s ability to give special accommodation to religious practice and thus would severely impair free exercise values. “No endorsement of religion” thus must function, not as the general requirement of the Establishment Clause, but only as a rule for the particular class of establishment cases involving government-sponsored religious symbols and expression. The no-endorsement test is legitimate for that category of cases, I argue, but only because in those cases it serves the more fundamental goal of protecting a voluntary religious sector independent of government