ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 1

Initial Review Assignment

Royal McHenry
LPCY700: Foundations of the American Legal Process
Public Policy (B02)
February 18, 2024

John B. Turner
School of Law, Liberty University
LPCY 700: Foundations of the American Legal Process and Public Policy
Dr. Tamara Reid McIntosh, Esq.
February 15, 2024

D/S: Royal Porter McHenry #32751160

I have no conflict of interest.
Email: rmchenry1@liberty.edu
Keywords: Law, Policy, Initiatives
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 2

Perkins, H. (2023). The Death Penalty from a Christian Worldview

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/hsgconference/2023/liberty_justice/16/
Abstract
In today’s legal system in America has not deviated from the founders of our country but has
focused more so on the religious principals accordingly. It is critical that a well-informed
Christian judge with their own spirit concerns of law and policy in the United States the renders

a moral perspective in analyzing and understanding issues of both secular views which gravitates

to courts under the theory of what is right or wrong and the faith based principals. In the research

of Perkins we find the struggle of policies, that becomes law, are constantly contested within the

elements of crimes that allows death penalty consequences. The death penalty, is more than a

national debated subject within the United States. It is an important struggle for Christians to

consider when digesting the secular trivial of justification within meaning of those laws found in

the very heart of the foundation of our existence as Christians. We are left with the continuation

of lost and what reward for the absence is satisfaction. We go to the Lord in prayer.

Introduction

In reference to the topic at hand, authored Perkins, Haleigh 2023, has referenced a serous

reflection of a Christian’s worldview, hoping to uncover the biblical perspective of the death

penalty. It is essential to consider both the Old Testament, the New Testament, the constitution

(including the laws codified thereof) and what could be consideration. To begin, I feel it is

important to remind ourselves of the ways Jesus has shown grace to those throughout the bible.

In book of John (9: 1-4), a blind solicitor whom we learned of his purpose for existence was to

make know the son of God marvelous works to mankind even in light of the fact mankind would
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 3

commit a sin that violates the ten commandments, “Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13), . This

man had been blind since birth. Christ performed a miracle on this man with mud he had formed

together and administer on this person’s eyes. The man was healed. Imagine being blind your

entire life, a parent (s) would consider an eternal punishment, the first time this child ever opened

their eyes, as consideration for their initial loss of sight from birth. The man who has saved you

from all pain and suffering. Jesus saw many people suffering, and he healed them because they

had faith and trust in what Jesus could do and did. Jesus did the same for us when he died on the

cross for each of our sins. One we as Christians have choose to be baptized in his name and

accept him into our lives, to have a relationship with him and bring others to do the same, was

put to death so we could receive the grace of God. From a secular point of view law what

satisfaction would a family receive when their accuser put their relative to death brings us to an

evolving question concerning death penalty. “As we consider the pain and suffering of the

victims of horrible crimes, have experienced and continue to endure, we must be there to remind

them of who is walking through the fire with them” (Perkins 2023 p 3).

Biblical Aspects of our Country

There are many aspects of our judicial system that are formed from the Bible. “Biblical

references to the word justice mean ‘to make a right (Perkins 2023).The point of our court

systems is to bring justice to those who are in need of being compensated or to bring some form

of peace to those who have been involved in some way in a criminal case. Our contractual

agreement, vowing our pledge of allegiance, we commit to being, One nation, under God.

President Thomas Jefferson declare and explained our freedom comes from God (The Kennedy

Center 2019). In 1954 President Jefferson explicitly defined our government was established to

protect that God-given Freedom as a nation and no human gives us these rights nor should there
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 4

be any laws created to deny us these unalienable gifts of God. As Christians we adhered to the

word of God even in light of Romans 6:23 states, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of

God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” As we settle into a civilization often being reminded

that our creator set forth the ultimate decision of nature and all he has given to us as a nation.

These verses could be applicable to the questions of the death penalty .

Violation of Rights

It is important for us to consider what rights we are stripping from those who are

sentenced to death. Again we are confronted with the dilemma of scripture and scriptural.

Perkins emphasize two amendments that are warranted when the courts analyze the supreme law

of the land when issues of the death penalty is a violation of basic human rights. In light of the

eighth and fourteenth amendments which appears to have been in violation with those sentenced

to death. (1) Our eighth amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive

fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Eighth Amendment, 2023). (2)

(Fourteenth Amend 2023) The following Constitutional amendment was approved by Congress

on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No

State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws.
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 5

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to

their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding . But

when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President

of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or

the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State,

being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except

for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced

in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male

citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a senator, or representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or

under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer

of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer

of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection

or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may

by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,

including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing

insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State

shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the

United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts,

obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 6

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the

provisions of this article” (U.S. Const. 14th amend.)

“There are multiple instances in which those on death row have been wrongly convicted

of crimes, or sentenced to death for a crime that is not violent enough to receive a death

sentence” (Death Penalty Information Center 2023). There are also instances where wrongful

convictions have caused people to do placed on death row. These reasons include but are not

limited to wrongful eyewitness placing or pressured confessions.

Closing recommendations

Incidentally and most important human must be we reminded throughout the course of

our life on earth who is ultimately in control. At different eras of time god would send a Prophet

into the world with new instruction. However in our decision making resolutions there are those

of suffer both physical and mental pain for the loss of others, of both victim and accuser families.

At what degree of injury is the family of the loss can be made whole if possible and does the

death penalty serves as a satisfaction. “We have all sinned, each and every day” (Browder 2021 p

2). What is the bar or deciding factor; in the relationship you have built with Christ Jesus that

will grant you peace, is a conscious effort humans must embrace from a Christian Worldview.

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Romans 12:17). It is clear upon the face of situation where a

capital crime that carries the death penalty is one of consciousness but is that consciousness

competent and deliberate. There is certainly immediate and mandatory specificities that may go

beyond the clearness upon the surface into a category that may survive the death penalty in the

United States of America.

Conclusion
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 7

“Throughout researching the death penalty and all the factors that go into it, there is a lot
most of us don’t realize. The research of this paper was a major learning experience for
me. This can be an extremely touchy topic, especially when it comes to making a
decision according to your faith. There are many instances throughout this research in
which I have felt challenged both personally and spiritually. It is difficult to sit in class or
at home and hear fellow classmates, or family members debate this topic. It can be hard
to share what you believe for fear of either being wrong or being looked upon different”
(p. 12). The death penalty has been debated a lot recently between family members and
me, as well as times in a classroom setting. I feel this is another thing that truly motivated
me to do more research into God’s word. A quote I happened to come across is what
moved me out of the state of doubt I had been consumed by. God doesn’t call the
qualified; he qualifies the called. After a time of reflecting and analyzing this quote, I
realized; God never asked me to already be qualified because he qualifies me. Through
him, I am qualified to share with you who He is. I am qualified through Christ Jesus.
There were multiple instances where I felt doubt in myself and my capability of bringing
a biblical standpoint to the death penalty. I allowed stress and anxiety to overwhelm me
for a period of time. I allowed more room for anxiety and fear than I did for God, which
caused me to fail at relaying what God was truly laying on my heart. Oftentimes, we feel
this way when we feel something is too much, too overwhelming, or simply impossible.
However, Luke 1:37, for nothing will be impossible with God. Regardless of the fear and
doubt each of us may experience under several circumstances, there is nothing that is
impossible or that we are unqualified for, through God. This is if we place our faith,
hope, and trust in him (Perkins 2023).
It is my opinion, author Perkins has resolve this issue in the hearts and minds of hundreds
of collegian researchers who struggle with the thought, a death penalty consequences is not the
satisfactory tort a person or family (Nearly Million Dollar Price Tag 2021). Such action may or
may not have a sense of eye for an eye theory but it could never have the comfort that the Lord
Would when we all come to him in prayer.
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 8

References
Constitution Annotated, “Eighth Amendment,” Accessed February 16, 2023,
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-8/
Constitution Annotated, “Fourteenth Amendment,” Accessed February 16, 2023,
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/
Death Penalty Information Center, “Facts About the Death Penalty,” PDF file, Updatedon
February 9, 2023, https://documents.deathpenaltyinfo.org/pdf/FactSheet.pdf
Death Penalty Information Center, “Records Disclose Taxpayers Picked Up a
Nearly Million Dollar Price Tag for Each Federal Execution,” February 3, 2021,
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/records-disclose-taxpayers-picked-up-a-nearly-
milliondollar-price-tag-for-each-federal-execution
Death Penalty Information Center, “Time on Death Row,” Accessed February 13, 2023,
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row
EJI, “Death Penalty,” February 15, 2023. https://eji.org/issues/death-penalty/
Liberty Champion, “Opinion: Christians and the Death Penalty,” March 1, 2021,
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/03/opinion-christians-and-the-deathpenalty/
Keaton Browder, “Opinion: Christians and the Death Penalty,” Liberty Champion, March 1,
2021, https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/03/opinion-christians-and-the-death-
penalty/
The Kennedy Center, “God Bless America: The Story Behind The Song,” September 17, 2019,
https://www.kennedy-center.org/education/resources-for-
educators/classroomresources/media-and-interactives/media/music/story-behind-the-
song/the-story-behindthe-song/god-blessamerica/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt's%20
not%20a%20patriotic%20song,anthem%20of%2
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 9

College John. very import discussion. It is my belief that any thing the effects the nature of our
existence must be view with a moral intent instead of a ethical concoction. meaning Our father
has the authority to make that decision as we as his creation maintain free will but subject to his
covenant. Scheb, J. M., & Sharma, H. (2023). An introduction to the American legal system.
actually addresses the Sherbert test. This test is a significant test that is not only applied in
abortion but every activity that conflict with humans rights and the laws of this country. In April
of 1963, the case of Sherbert v. Verner was argued before the Supreme Court of the United
States due to Adeil Sherbert being rejected by the Employment Security Commission for
receiving unemployment benefits. Sherbert had been working at a textile mill, and was also an
adherent of the Seventh-Day Adventist faith and church. According to this religion, Saturdays
are not for working and should be set aside as a day of rest. When she refused to work on a
Saturday for this reason, as requested by her employer, she was fired, and subsequently denied
unemployment benefits and financial compensation by the government. She appealed this
decision, resulting in a landmark case that ascended to the Supreme Court. A Sherbert test is
used in a court of law to determine if the government's actions violate a person's religious
freedom. Resulting from the Supreme Court case of Sherbert v. Verner, the Shebert test is two-
fold in its phases: first, it must be determined if there is a compelling interest. This means there
must be a legitimate violation of religious expression or freedom, and the test also determines in
the first phase if the government could and should be involved. The second phase of the test
determines that if that compelling interest is there, that interest or that law is a substantial burden
on the party in question. The purpose of the Sherbert test, simply put, is to determine if there has
been a government infringement on religious rights or freedoms. Not to be confused with the
Sherbert test is something called the Valid Secular Policy Test. This test can uphold a court's
decision if it is determined that there is no controlling religious intent behind the law, and the
decision is based on principles that are in line with governmental goals. Herewith this AKA
Valid Secular Policy Test explains the nature and nurture importance of rights and privileges
Valid Secular Policy Test invokes the way religious establishments. On the issue of Roe v Wade.
As stated in Sinclair, the definition of the Conservative Christian cohort. First the religious
identity of conservative-liberal must be dissected from the political use of the term (Sinclair
2019). The article makes no attempt at this. The term conservative can be used in two ways; an
indicator for strict interpretation of the bible or the more common and broader usage to identify
political ideology. Here lies the problem. The question becomes: Should the Government view
any and all issues through the moral concept first and then the secular interpretation and render a
decision that aligns with the word of God?

Reference
Bucki, L. J. (1963). Sherbert v. Verner: The Trojan Horse. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 25, 711.
Scheb, J. M., & Sharma, H. (2023). An introduction to the American legal system. Aspen
Publishing.
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 10

Sinclair, George (2019 April 7). Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ Christianity the Gospel Coalition:
Canada.” The Gospel Coalition | Canada, ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/conservative-and-
liberal-christianity/.
Thank you, But I did receive any points for the quiz on 2/25 2024 at all. So thank you for the
opportunity to explain:
(1) #16
How does the Nashville Statement Fortified define marriage? Is this consistent with the modern
legal system’s understanding of marriage?

No. This original concept is actually based on the religious ideology of what America was to
become. The Nashville Statement is expresses support for marriage between one man and one
woman, for faithfulness within marriage, for chastity outside marriage, and for a link between
biological sex and "self-conception as male and female". The Statement sets forth the
signatories' opposition to sexuality, same-sex marriage (Beaty 2022). It was criticized by
egalitarian Christians. Yet the LGBT activists, and several conservative religious figures support
the sinful act. The Statement was drafted in late August 2017, during the annual conference of
the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention at the Gaylord
Opryland Resort & Convention Center in Nashville, Tennesse. The statement was published
online on August 29, 2017. It was signed by more than 150 evangelical Christian leaders
(Sopelsa, 2017). The Statement includes a preamble and 14 articles. The opening paragraph
begins with, Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century who found themselves
living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture had become increasingly post-
Christian, it had embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. The
Statement presents a complementarian view of gender and a traditionalist view of sexuality. A
number of contextual layers stand behind the Nashville Statement (henceforth NS). For example,
the socio-political context reveals that the NS came just two years after the landmark US
Supreme Court decision favoring same-sex marriage. This event, viewed by many as emblematic
of the decline of “Judeo Christian values,” has left many evangelicals on edge, thus
prompting, in part, the production of the NS. “It would be much
easier to be quiet,” wrote Albert Mohler in The Washington Post
on the NS, “to let the moral revolution proceed unanswered, and
to seek some kind of refuge in silence or ambiguity, we did
not believe we could remain silent" (Hübner, 2019).

The Nashville Statement:

 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 11

· Affirms that God designed marriage as a lifelong union between male and female, and that
marriage "is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church";

· Denies that differences between men and women render the sexes "unequal in dignity or
worth";

· Denies "that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with

God's holy purposes in creation and redemption."(art. VII b)

· Denies "that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of

moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree."(art. Xb)

· Affirms that "Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through
Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person
who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure".

Conclusion

In the matter of Lawrence v. Texas the US Supreme Court decided that liberty protects the
person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our
tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and
existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom
extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of
thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the
person both in its spatial and in its more transcendent dimensions. Furthermore, the Constitution
contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does
not abridge fundamental rights. Now the Supreme Court has decided the right to same sex
marriage is left to the chose of the individuals.

Beaty, K. (2022). Celebrities for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits Are Hurting the
Church. Brazos Press.

Hübner, J. (2019). The Nashville Statement: A Critical Review. Priscilla Papers, 33(1), 19-30.
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 12

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003).

Sopelsa, B. (2017). MSNBC’s Joy Reid Apologizes for ‘Insensitive’LGBT Blog Posts. NBC
News, December, 3.

(2) # 17

Dr Reid-Mcintosh Part #17

Does Chancellor Kent see the right to property as deriving from the civil government or the laws
of nature and nature’s God? Explain fully.

James Kent (July 31, 1763 – December 12, 1847) was an American jurist, New York legislator,
legal scholar, and first Professor of Law at Columbia College. His lectures first delivered at
Columbia in 1794, and further lectures in the 1820, became the formative American law book in
the antebellum era (published in 14 editions before 1896) and also helped establish the tradition
of law reporting in America. He is sometimes called the "American Blackstone (Langbein,
1993). Kent was born in what was then the town of Fredericksburg. Despite interruptions caused
by the American Revolutionary War, Kent graduated from Yale College. In 1781, having helped
establish the Phi Beta Kappa Society. Returning to New York, Kent read law under Egbert
Benson, (then the state Attorney General and later a state judge). In 1793, Kent moved his
family to New York City, where he had been appointed the first professor of law in Columbia
College, where he would teach (part-time) for the next five years. He was soon appointed a
master in chancery for the city and in 1798, a justice of the New York Supreme Court. Kent has
been long remembered for his highly respected views in England and America. The
Commentaries treated state, federal and international law, and the law of personal rights and of
property, and went through six editions in Kent's lifetime. Kent rendered his most essential
service to American jurisprudence while serving as chancellor. Chancery, or equity law, had
been very unpopular during the colonial period, and had received little development, and no
decisions had been published. His judgments of this class cover a wide range of topics, and are
so thoroughly considered and developed as unquestionably to form the basis of American equity
jurisprudence (Cheslow, 1997). As Chancellor, Kent inspired the development of modern
American discovery by allowing masters to actively examine witnesses during depositions

(rather than following the old English procedure of merely reading static interrogatories), and he
allowed parties and counsel to be present for depositions. These innovations led to the modern
deposition by oral examination. I mentioned this part of deposition because it’s really a good
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 13

lawful practice. Anyway Kent once theorized and submitted that such laws betray an intentional
lack of adherence to and disregard for the laws of nature and of nature's God. Specifically, such
laws reject the ideas that the Creator has authorized private property and individuals own it as a
gift of God. The people who passed these laws have adopted the precept that all property is
ultimately owned by civil government, which merely permits individuals to possess property as
long as it serves the public interest, convenience or necessity. In other words, current thinking
rejects the idea that property rights are unalienable. However, I propose to demonstrate the
bankruptcy of current thinking, to rediscover the true nature of property, and to reaffirm that
property rights are unalienable. I will do this by presenting evidence in support of three
propositions. First, property rights are regarded as unalienable rights in the Declaration of
Independence. Second, property is God's gift to the family; therefore, it is consistent with God's
true justice, it is private in nature, and it is an unalienable right. Third, private property is
recognized as an unalienable right in the Constitution, particularly as it is secured in the fourth
and fifth amendments (Stychin,1993).
Reference
Cheslow, Jerry. "A Transit Hub With a Thriving Downtown", The New York Times., July 13,
1997. Accessed May 1, 2022. "The name Summit may have been coined by James Kent, retired
Chancellor of the Court of Chancery, New York State's highest judicial office, who bought a
house on the hill in 1837 and named it Summit Lodge."
Langbein, J. H. (1993), Chancellor Kent and the History of Legal Literature . Faculty
Scholarship Series. Paper 549. p. 548
Stychin, C. F. (1993). The Commentaries of Chancellor James Kent and the Development of an
American Common Law. American Journal of Legal History, 37(4), 440-463
Dr. Reid-Mcintosh I apolozie for this late response I had to stand in today in a civil case for the
lead Attorney that was called to New York for a personal matter.
Dr Reid-Mcintosh I pray this revision explains the answers significantly. Your brother in Christ.
Royal
Amended #16
How does the Nashville Statement Fortified define marriage? Is this consistent with the
modern legal system’s understanding of marriage?
No the Nashville Statement is not consistent with the modern legal systems of understanding
marriage because many secular officers of our government are not religious oriented. The
determinants of clergy and government member’s opinions on homosexuality depend heavily on
the specific nature of conflict and other issues for years. At the time of our study, conflict over
homosexuality-related issues was better developed and closer to the forefront of human rights to
privacy then in the forefather’s founding days which consisted of religious Quakers, Puritians,
Cavaliers and Boarders. The Episcopal Church of England were against the ideology of same-sex
engagement. They were believers in the Holy bible and truly followers of Christ. Leviticus 18:22
New Living Translation (22) “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as
with a woman. It is a detestable sin (Wood, 1970:1058). While situational attributions are made
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 14

by those who view such issues as the product of social circumstances beyond the individual’s
control. In general, this behavior are link to the ideology of nature and nurture. While some learn
the style and potray it as a culture others are born with genetically difficulties of either specific
behavior. In the legal aspect of debating the rights of homosexuality the Supreme Court has
taking on a controversial issue that drives members to rationalize their opinions along theological
and how it integrates with external political lines to derive to result that denominational leaders
want to avoid. Under these conditions, Church’s still maintain that act of conduct is a sin. And I
as a Minister of the word of God totally agree with the belief this act of conduct is a sin.
Moreover, unfavorable opinions on this controversial issue like homosexuality will draw down
the good will and effectiveness of the denomination of churches all cross the land regarding
other matters, in the same way, feelings of legitimacy affect secular governments. It is
not a stretch to say that taking on a controversial issue is potentially dangerous to the
organization, societies or communities it is a matter as humans society has learn to except even
though this act of conduct may exacerbate existing weaknesses (Hadden 1969; Wood and Zald
1966).
Amended #17
Does Chancellor Kent see the right to property as deriving from the civil government or
the laws of nature and nature’s God? Explain fully.
I have researched and agree with Kent theories that human self-indulge rights to and laws betray
an intentional inheritance to and disregard the laws of nature and of nature's God. Specifically,
such laws reject the ideas that the Creator has authorized private property and individuals own it
as a gift of God. The people who passed these laws have adopted the precept that all property is
ultimately owned by civil government, which merely permits individuals to possess property as
long as it serves the public interest, convenience or necessity. In other words, current thinking
rejects the idea that property rights are unalienable (Stychin,1993). However, I propose Leviticus
25:23: “the land is mine.” God is the ultimate owner but has delegated stewardship to his image
bearers. He has called them to dominion or ruler-ship over all he has made (Gen. 1:26-28). He
carefully preserves the rights of individuals to keep and use their land and property. This oft
repeated biblical text promises everyone a place to rest, a right to ownership, safety, and
abundance (II Kings 18:31; Is. 36:16; Zech. 3:10). These and other Scripture passages assert that
everyone has a right to a place to call home. To rediscover the true nature of property, and to
reaffirm that property rights are unalienable. I will do this by presenting evidence in support of
three propositions. First, property rights are regarded as unalienable rights in the Declaration of
Independence. Second, property is God's gift to the family; therefore, it is consistent with God's
true justice, it is private in nature, and it is an unalienable right. Third, private property is
recognized as an unalienable right in the Constitution, particularly as it is secured in the fourth
and fifth amendments (Stychin,1993). In these few quotes rather from the Bible, scholarly
journals or wise men from the east it is my believe that our individual freedom and privacy take
precedence over all and that our private space is the main reason the founding fathers fleed
England and established the land of the free and home of the brave. Kent rationalization is one of
the same. Numbers 33:53-54 (KJV) You shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in
it, for I have given you the land to possess. And you shall divide the land by lot as an inheritance
among your families; to the larger you shall give a larger inheritance, and to the smaller you shall
give a smaller inheritance; there everyone's inheritance shall be whatever falls to him by lot. You
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 15

shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers. Leviticus 25:23 ‘The land shall not be sold
permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me. Leviticus 27:16-
24. If a man dedicates to the LORD part of a field of his possession, then your valuation shall be
according to the seed for it. A homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver. If he
dedicates his field from the Year of Jubilee, according to your valuation it shall stand. But if he
dedicates his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon to him the money due according
to the years that remain till the Year of Jubilee, and it shall be deducted from your valuation. And
if he who dedicates the field ever wishes to redeem it, then he must add one-fifth of the money of
your valuation to it, and it shall belong to him. But if he does not want to redeem the field, or if
he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore; but the field, when it is
released in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the LORD, as a devoted field; it shall be the possession of
the priest. ‘And if a man dedicates to the LORD a field which he has bought, which is not the
field of his possession, then the priest shall reckon to him the worth of your valuation, up to the
Year of Jubilee, and he shall give your valuation on that day as a holy offering to the LORD. In
the Year of Jubilee the field shall return to him from whom it was bought, to the one who owned
the land as a possession. Dr. Reid-Mcintosh. I pray for your consideration. Thank you, Your
brother in Christ, Royal.

In his study of conflict in churches over civil rights, Hadden concludes that the conflict is
rooted in clashing views on civil rights and the role of the church in public affairs (1969:159).
We do not disagree, as these factors are on prominent display here, but we also find that the
organizational context of the conflict is important, and not just its polity, since that is essentially
held constant here. Organizational history drives the nature of current conflicts. A more general
sense of support for the organization, such as those represented in opinions on full communion,
shapes views on even unrelated organizational policy matters. As in the Episcopal Church, a
history of issue conflict may also handicap current efforts at policy change and control as there
is certainly little apathy left to help diffuse tensions among Episcopalians on issues related to
homosexuality. Before a policy is enacted, the agenda must be set. And “deciding to decide” is
an exercise of significant power as well as a gamble since participants may not have perfect
information about how the process will go—different interests and questions may emerge at the
stage of policy choice (Kingdon 1995). In the case of these two denominations, especially in the
ELCA at the time of the study, there is still uncertainty about where everyone stands and what
launching a debate about homosexuality in the denomination might entail. The questions posed
at the agenda-setting stage may generate conflicting desires. Many clergy and members believe
their faith must bear witness to society and are supportive of their denomination becoming more
active in public debates. At the same time, such public debates are divisive, the outcomes are
uncertain, and conflict over issues can strike at the organizational robustness of the denomination
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 16

and local congregations. In the end, the denomination is left in an uncomfortable position, with
serious ramifications no
matter the action committed or omitted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Anderson, J. 1997. “The lesbian and gay liberation movement in the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), 1974–1996.” Journal
of Homosexuality 34:37–65.
Banerjee, N. 2004. “Rupture in U.S. Episcopal Church.” The New York Times (October 3).
Baumgartner, F. R. and B. D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
University of Chicago Press.
Brewer, P. 2003. “The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights.” Journal of
Politics 65:1208–20.
BL300/JSSR jssr˙331 September 30, 2006 2:45
STATEMENTS ON HOMOSEXUALITY IN TWO DENOMINATIONS 621
Cadge, W. 2002. “Vital conflicts: The mainline denominations debate homosexuality.” In The
quiet hand of God: Faithbased activism and the public role of mainline protestantism, edited by
R. Wuthnow and J. H. Evans. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Campbell, E. Q. and T. F. Pettigrew. 1959. Christians in racial crisis: A study of littlerock’s
ministry. Washington, DC:
Public Affairs Press.
Coulmont, B. 2005. “Do the Rite Thing: Religious Civil Unions in Vermont.” Social Compass
52: 225–39.
Crawford, S. E. S. and L. R. Olson, eds. 2001. Christian clergy in American politics. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Djupe, P. A. and C. P. Gilbert. 2002a. “The Nature of Religious Influence on Political Behavior:
Perception and Reception.”
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Djupe, P. A. and C. P. Gilbert. 2002b. “The Political Voice of Clergy.” The Journal of Politics
64:596–609.
Djupe, P. A. and C. P. Gilbert. 2003. The prophetic pulpit: Clergy, churches, and communities in
American politics.
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 17

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Djupe, P. A., L. R. Olson and C. P. Gilbert. 2006. “Sources of Clergy Support for
Denominational Lobbying in Washington.”
Review of Religious Research (Forthcoming). Q1
Guth, J. L., J. C. Green, C. E. Smidt, L. A. Kellstedt and M. M. Poloma. 1997. The bully pulpit:
The politics of protestant
clergy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Hadden, J. K. 1969. The gathering storm in the churches. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Jelen, T. G. 1992. The political world of the clergy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd ed. New York: Harper
Collins.
Kohut, A., J. C. Green, S. Keeter and R. C. Toth. 2000. The diminishing divide: Religion’s
changing role in American
politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Loftus, J.. 2001. “America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.”
American Sociological
Review 66:762–82.
Olson, L. R. 2000. Filled with spirit and power: Protestant clergy in politics. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Olson, L. R. and W. Cadge. 2002. “Talking about homosexuality: The views of mainline
protestant clergy.” Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 42:621–31.
Olson, L. R., S. E. S. Crawford and M. M. Deckman. 2005. Women with a mission: Religion,
gender, and the politics of
women clergy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Quinley, H. E. 1974. The prophetic clergy: Social activism among protestant ministers. New
York: Wiley.
Rosenstone, S. J. and J. M. Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in
America. New York: Macmillan.
Wellman, J.. 1999. “The debate over homosexual ordination: Sub-cultural identity theory in
American religious organizations.” Review of Religious Research 41:184–206.
 ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS 18

Wood, J. R. 1970. “Authority and controversial policy: The churches and civil rights.” American
Sociological Review
35:1057–69.
Wood, J. R. and J. P. Block. 1995. “The role of church assemblies in building a civil society: The
case of the united
methodist general conference on homosexuality.” Sociology of Religion 56:121–36.
Wood, J. R. and M. N. Zald. 1966. “Aspects of racial integration in the methodist church:
Sources of resistance to
organizational policy.” Social Forces 45:255–65