Virtually everyone supports religious liberty, and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? This point-counterpoint book brings together leading voices in the culture wars to debate such questions: John Corvino, a longtime LGBT-rights advocate, opposite Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, prominent young social conservatives. Many such questions have arisen in response to same-sex marriage: How should we treat county clerks who do not wish to authorize such marriages, for example; or bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to provide same-sex wedding services? But the conflicts extend well beyond the LGBT rights arena. How should we treat hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies that can't in conscience follow antidiscrimination laws, healthcare mandates, and other regulations? Should corporations ever get exemptions? Should public officials? Should we keep controversial laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or pass new ones like the First Amendment Defense Act? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? What counts as discrimination, and when is it unjust? What kinds of material and dignitary harms should the law try to fightand what is dignitary harm, anyway? Beyond the law, how should we treat religious beliefs and practices we find mistaken or even oppressive? Should we tolerate them or actively discourage them? In point-counterpoint format, Corvino, Anderson and Girgis explore these questions and more. Although their differences run deep, they tackle them with civility, clarity, and flair. Their debate is an essential contribution to contemporary discussions about why religious liberty matters and what respecting it requires.

In Subjectivity, sixteen leading scholars examine the turn to the subject in modern philosophy and consider its historical antecedents in ancient and medieval thought. Some critics of modernity reject the turn to the subject as a specifically modern error, arguing that it logically leads to nihilism and moral relativism by divorcing the human mind from objective reality. Yet, some important thinkers of the last half-century--including Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, John Finnis, and Bernard Lonergan--consider a subjective starting point and claim to find a similar position in ancient and medieval thought. If correct, their positions suggest that one can adopt the subjective turn and remain true to the tradition. This is a timely question. The common good of our polity encounters a situation in which many believe that there is no objective reality to which human minds and wills ought to conform, a conclusion that suggests we can define and construct reality. In light of this, the notion of a natural or objective reality to which human beings ought to conform becomes particularly vital. Should we, then, adopt the modern turn to subjectivity and argue for objective truth and moral order on its basis, or reject the subjective turn as part of the problem and return to an earlier approach that grounds these things in nature or some other external reality? Critics of modern subjectivity argue that the modern turn to subjectivity must be abandoned because it is the very source of the nominalism that threatens to undermine liberal democracy. Others argue, however, that subjectivity itself logically leads to the recognition of an objective reality beyond the mind of the individual. Edited by R. J. Snell and Steven F. McGuire, this collection will be of particular interest to intellectual historians, political philosophers, theologians, and philosophers.