Bild 1 von 5
Galerie
Bild 1 von 5
Ähnlichen Artikel verkaufen?
Zustimmung zu widersprechen: Wie die Gründungsklaus
US $5,86
Ca.CHF 4,65
Artikelzustand:
Sehr gut
Buch, das nicht neu aussieht und gelesen wurde, sich aber in einem hervorragenden Zustand befindet. Der Einband weist keine offensichtlichen Beschädigungen auf. Bei gebundenen Büchern ist der Schutzumschlag vorhanden (sofern zutreffend). Alle Seiten sind vollständig vorhanden, es gibt keine zerknitterten oder eingerissenen Seiten und im Text oder im Randbereich wurden keine Unterstreichungen, Markierungen oder Notizen vorgenommen. Der Inneneinband kann minimale Gebrauchsspuren aufweisen. Minimale Gebrauchsspuren. Genauere Einzelheiten sowie eine Beschreibung eventueller Mängel entnehmen Sie bitte dem Angebot des Verkäufers.
- Sofort-KaufenZustimmung zu widersprechen: Wie die Gründungsklausel die religiöse Vielfalt schützt
Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.
Refresh your browser window to try again.
Versand:
US $4,47 (ca. CHF 3,55) USPS Media MailTM.
Standort: Lanham, Maryland, USA
Lieferung:
Lieferung zwischen Do, 23. Okt und Mo, 27. Okt nach 94104 bei heutigem Zahlungseingang
Rücknahme:
Keine Rücknahme.
Zahlungen:
Sicher einkaufen
Der Verkäufer ist für dieses Angebot verantwortlich.
eBay-Artikelnr.:365867060305
Artikelmerkmale
- Artikelzustand
- ISBN
- 9780195304664
Über dieses Produkt
Product Identifiers
Publisher
Oxford University Press, Incorporated
ISBN-10
0195304667
ISBN-13
9780195304664
eBay Product ID (ePID)
21057245870
Product Key Features
Book Title
Agreeing to Disagree : How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience
Number of Pages
240 Pages
Language
English
Publication Year
2023
Topic
Constitutional, Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice, General, Legal History
Illustrator
Yes
Genre
Law
Book Series
Inalienable Rights Ser.
Format
Hardcover
Dimensions
Item Height
0.9 in
Item Weight
13.4 Oz
Item Length
8.3 in
Item Width
5.9 in
Additional Product Features
Intended Audience
Trade
LCCN
2023-004785
Reviews
"Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.'" -- Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law"Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed." -- Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy"Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approach grounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court." -- Chaim Saiman, Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law"The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remains neutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text." -- John Witte, Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment"Outstanding new book." -- Law and Liberty"The Kennedy Court's rejection of secularist suppression was the perfect moment for the justices to substitute this norm for its ahistorical secularist mandates. Sometimes, the antidote to bad doctrine is better doctrine, not no doctrine at all. But the Court has unfortunately chosen to proceed by dead historical reckoning. There is no better compass for that journey than Agreeing to Disagree." -- Gerard Bradley, Public Discourse, "Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutionaldiscourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.'" -- Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, SetonHall University School of Law"Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed." -- Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy"Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approachgrounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court." -- Chaim Saiman, Professor ofLaw, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law"The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remainsneutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text." -- John Witte,Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment"Outstanding new book." -- Law and Liberty"The Kennedy Court's rejection of secularist suppression was the perfect moment for the justices to substitute this norm for its ahistorical secularist mandates. Sometimes, the antidote to bad doctrine is better doctrine, not no doctrine at all. But the Court has unfortunately chosen to proceed by dead historical reckoning. There is no better compass for that journey than Agreeing to Disagree." -- Gerard Bradley, Public Discourse, "Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.'" -- Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law"Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed." -- Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy"Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approach grounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court." -- Chaim Saiman, Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law"The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remains neutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text." -- John Witte, Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment"Outstanding new book." -- Law and Liberty, "Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.'" -- Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law "Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed." -- Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy "Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approach grounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court." -- Chaim Saiman, Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law "The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remains neutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text." -- John Witte, Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment, Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse atan especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.', "Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.'" -- Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law"Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed." -- Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy"Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approach grounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court." -- Chaim Saiman, Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law"The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remains neutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text." -- John Witte, Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment"Outstanding new book." -- Law and Liberty"The Kennedy Court's rejection of secularist suppression was the perfect moment for the justices to substitute this norm for its ahistorical secularist mandates. Sometimes, the antidote to bad doctrine is better doctrine, not no doctrine at all. But the Court has unfortunately chosen to proceed by dead historical reckoning. There is no better compass for that journey than Agreeing to Disagree." -- Gerard Bradley, Public Discourse"Agreeing to Disagree combines deep expertise with a style and structure that facilitate a comprehensive introduction to the Establishment Clause's historical meaning and enduring importance." -- Nick Reaves, Benjamin Sanford, The Independent Review, "Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.'" -- Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law"Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed." -- Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy"Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approach grounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court." -- Chaim Saiman, Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law"The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remains neutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text." -- John Witte, Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment
Dewey Edition
23/eng/20230524
Dewey Decimal
342.7308/52
Table Of Content
Introduction Part I: History 1. Establishment at the Founding 2. Framing the First Amendment 3. Disestablishment in the States 4. Application of the Establishment Clause to the States Part II: Modern Controversies 5. The Rise and Fall of the lemon Test 6. Accommodation of Religious Exercise 7. No-Aid Separation, Neutrality, and Religious Schools 8. Prayer, Bible Reading, and Coercion 9. Conflicts Over Symbols 10. Church Autonomy 11. Conclusion: Neutrality Beyond the Establishment Clause
Synopsis
In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America's culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it? Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause's original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices. In Agreeing to Disagree , Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith., In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America's culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it? Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause's original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices. In Agreeing to Disagree, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith., In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America.The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America's culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it?Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause's original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices.In Agreeing to Disagree, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith., In Agreeing to Disagree, Michael W. McConnell and Nathan S. Chapman detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of religious disestablishment in the United States--and how they relate to modern controversies over school funding, accommodation, public prayer, and public religious symbols. They argue that the clause is not a thumb on the scale for secularism in public matters (let alone the opposite) but a constitutional commitment for Americans of all religious commitments--and none--to agree to disagree about matters of faith.
LC Classification Number
KF4865.C43 2023
Artikelbeschreibung des Verkäufers
Info zu diesem Verkäufer
SourDough_Sam's
100% positive Bewertungen•890 Artikel verkauft
Angemeldet als gewerblicher Verkäufer
Verkäuferbewertungen (348)
- i***s (322)- Bewertung vom Käufer.Letzter MonatBestätigter KaufGreat seller! Good price, packagedvery well, shipped fast and got it as described.
- h***5 (353)- Bewertung vom Käufer.Letzte 6 MonateBestätigter KaufEasy transaction, fast shipping, packaging very well done and appropriate to item, item as described, good communication. Great ebay seller, would purchase from again!Star Wars The Black Series Attack Of The Clones Phase I Clone Trooper 2024 (Nr. 365648308629)
- o***h- Bewertung vom Käufer.Letzte 6 MonateBestätigter KaufI’m very happy with my purchase! seller was so friendly to answer my questions. Items shipped fast and packaged with care. I would absolutely buy again. Wonderful experience!! Thank you!!!Flexi Xtreme 8 m Large Tape Leash – Black/Orange – Dogs up to 55 kg – New (Nr. 365700799000)