Author Date

2024-07-31

Degree Name

BA

Department

Political Science

College

Family, Home, and Social Sciences

Defense Date

2024-06-20

Publication Date

2024-07-31

First Faculty Advisor

Ralph Hancock

First Faculty Reader

Bradley Rebeiro

Honors Coordinator

Darin Self

Keywords

Religion, Constitutional Law, Natural Rights Philosophy, Social Contract theory, Rights of Conscience

Abstract

Religion Clause jurisprudence in the United States has long been a subject of debate. Vincent Phillip Muñoz and Steven D. Smith, two prominent scholars in the field, offer distinct perspectives on the interpretation and application of the Religion Clauses. Muñoz advocates for a natural rights construction, grounding religious liberty in the Founders' understanding of inalienable rights. In contrast, Smith analyzes the principle of religious liberty through reflecting upon how the Founders’, particularly James Madison, were influenced by the historical, philosophical, and theological development of the principle. This thesis conducts a comparative analysis of their viewpoints, focusing on their interpretations of the First Amendment, the nature of religious freedom, and their legal implications, using James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance as a benchmark. By examining their contrasting perspectives, this research aims to contribute to a nuanced understanding of religious freedom discourse and provide insights into the evolving landscape of religious freedom jurisprudence.

Download

Share

COinS