God, Family, and the Green Bay Packers

[Michael McConnell]

I am sorry that Rod Smith has declared his "last salvo" on the issue
of "conscience." This is one of the most important questions of First
Amendment law. I hope he will reconsider, and give us more salvos.

That said, I find myself completely perplexed about what Smith means
by "covenant" and why he thinks this escapes the problems of
objectivity and sectarian character that plague the term "religion."
I am presently in about the 20th week of a Sunday School class on
covenant theology. I am not sure I could provide a definition, even
yet, of what "covenant" means, precisely. And limiting protections for
conscience to those whose convictions are based on the idea of
covenant is far, far narrower than limiting it to "religion." Right
off the bat, the "covenant" limitation would seem to exclude
religious believers in natural law. (The natural law is binding, not
because of any agreement or covenant that the believer has entered
into, and not because of loyalty to God, but because that's the
normative reality of the universe.)

-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)