while the influence of religion on political behavior is widely recognized, (1) theologically-rooted norms, and the elites who hold or are influenced by them, frame and shape American policy choices to an extent that is not appreciated; (2) the country?s increasing religious diversity is affecting our ability to forge consensus or to govern; and (3) disciplinary ?silos? have prevented scholars from developing a sufficiently comprehensive synthesis of existing scholarship to adequately describe the nature and effects of the religious underpinnings of contemporary political polarization. As a result, while lawyers, political scientists and others recognize the more explicitly religious components of America?s current polarization, we fail to appreciate the extent to which conflicting policy preferences are rooted in religiously-shaped normative frameworks. Much like the blind men and the elephant, we encounter different parts of the animal. We see a tree, a wall, a snake?but we fail to apprehend the size, shape and power of the whole elephant.
Continue reading “Religious Paradigms: Thinking in Red and Blue”
Category Archives: Academic Papers
Using Restraints: The Legal Context of High Risk Interventions
The treatment of children by mental health professionals–particularly in an institutional setting–implicates three sets of important, and frequently competing, interests.
Continue reading “Using Restraints: The Legal Context of High Risk Interventions”
Religious Paradigms and the Rule of Law: Thinking in Red and Blue
While lawyers, political scientists and others recognize the more explicitly religious components of America?s current polarization, we fail to appreciate the extent to which conflicting policy preferences are rooted in religiously-shaped normative frameworks. Much like the blind men and the elephant, we encounter different parts of the animal. We see a tree, a wall, a snake?but we fail to apprehend the size, shape and power of the whole elephant.
Continue reading “Religious Paradigms and the Rule of Law: Thinking in Red and Blue”
Moral Opprobrium, Social Capital, and Funding for Mental Health Care:
We examine the effect of blame attribution and community cohesiveness (as proxied by community size) on public attitudes towards responsibility for mental health care. Data for this study were taken from the MacArthur Mental Health Module of the 1996 General Social Survey.
Continue reading “Moral Opprobrium, Social Capital, and Funding for Mental Health Care:”
The Poor You Have Always With You
The philosopher Santayana warned that those who do not know their own history are doomed to repeat it. That admonition is especially pertinent to discussions of social welfare in Indiana, where assistance programs reflect historic attitudes about poverty and service delivery is largely a product of the state?s political culture. In Indiana, as elsewhere, supporters of social welfare programs and the critics of those programs are still arguing about policies dating to 1349, when England enacted the Statute of Laborers, prohibiting alms, or charity, for those who had the ability to work–that is, to "sturdy beggars." This first attempt to deal with what we would later call welfare was not about providing assistance; it was about forcing people to work.
Continue reading “The Poor You Have Always With You”