The Introduction and Dedication to the Fall 2007 symposium issue of the West Virginia Law Review, Volume 110, on “The Religion Clauses in the 21st Century.” The Introduction was written by symposium organizers William P. Marshall, Solicitor General of Ohio and William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law; Vivian E. Hamilton, now Associate Professor at the College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law; and John E. Taylor, Associate Professor, West Virginia University College of Law. The symposium was convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the West Virginia University College of Law on October April 12 and 13, 2007. The symposium volume is dedicated to Steven Gey, the David and Deborah Fonvielle and Donald and Janet Hinkle Professor of Law at Florida State University.

An article from the Fall 2007 symposium issue of the West Virginia Law Review, Volume 110, on “The Religion Clauses in the 21st Century.” The symposium was convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the West Virginia University College of Law on October April 12 and 13, 2007.

As part of the series of papers from the symposium panel “Religion and Politics,” Vivian E. Hamilton, now Associate Professor of Law at College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, wrote “Religious v. Secular Ideologies and Sex Education: A Response to Professors Cahn and Carbone.” In the article, “Vivian Hamilton emphasizes the ways in which [Professors Cahn and Carbone] seem to embrace a fairly robust version of the ideal of public reason and questions whether that commitment can be fully justified and defended. While she shares Cahn’s and Carbone’s reservations about abstinence-only sex education, she suggests that there may be no practical alternative to allowing state experimentation with different approaches and hoping that an appreciation of policy consequences will ultimately prove more influential than religious ideology.” - From Introduction by William P. Marshall, Vivian E. Hamilton and John E. Taylor.

An article from the Fall 2007 symposium issue of the West Virginia Law Review, Volume 110, on “The Religion Clauses in the 21st Century.” The symposium was convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the West Virginia University College of Law on October April 12 and 13, 2007.

As part of the series of papers from the symposium panel “Accommodation of Religion,” Laura S. Underkuffler, Arthur Larson Professor of Law at Duke University, wrote “Religious Exemptions and the Common Good: A Reply to Professor Carmella.” “In her response to Carmella’s paper, Laura Underkuffler emphasizes the extent to which Carmella’s approach involves a radical departure from the way we ordinarily think about religious exemptions. The usual approach is to think that religious exemptions are justifiable, if they are, because the state is not competent to question or assess claims of religious value. In contrast, to evaluate religious exemption claims by reference to the common good is to openly acknowledge that the state must judge religions against its own schemes of value. For Underkuffler, however, appreciating the radicalism of Carmella’s proposal is a prelude to praise rather than scorn. She suggests that in the long run religious exemptions may only be sustainable in American society on terms similar to those proposed by Carmella.” - From Introduction by William P. Marshall, Vivian E. Hamilton and John E. Taylor.