Blogs post by Dr. Roy Clouser the resident professor of Christian Leaders Institute

Public Justice : Affordable Care Act

Admittedly, many controversies have swirled around the Affordable Care Act. Yet, there is a more basic issue, namely public justice. It has not received the attention it deserves. But although the issue of public justice has receded into the background, it still remains a driving motivation behind much of the controversy concerning the Act.

A Basic Issue : The Proper Scope of Government

We should not confuse this issImage result for public justiceue with people’s opinions of the actual provisions of the Act. Just about everyone thinks the Act needs to have been much better. But the issue I’m pointing to is whether it falls within the proper scope of government to pass any act at all to make health care accessible to its citizens. Some opponents of the Act think government has absolutely no responsibility in health matters. Meanwhile, others think that state governments may have such a responsibility but the federal government does not.

First Objection

Let’s consider first the objection against any and all government involvement in health matters.

This issue was actually addressed in one of the founding documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence. The first of the universal rights it mentions is the right to life, followed by the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The clause then closes with the assertion “that it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men.”

It would be wildly implausible to argue that this clause intends to assign to government the responsibility of protecting life only from threats due to war or crime. The need for government regulation to protect public health was clear to the American colonists early on.  For example, Cotton Mather advocated compulsory inoculations in Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1721. If it isn’t a government responsibility to see to the safety of food, water, air, transportation, and medicines, upon what institution of society does that responsibility fall?

Second Objection

The second objection agrees that the protection of life is a responsibility of government, but maintains that it should fall entirely to state governments rather than to the federal government. Those who hold this position usually do so on the grounds that the Constitution does not specifically delegate any such authority to the federal government.  Furthermore, it specifically requires any power it does not delegate to the federal government to remain with the states. Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano argues this way, for example. In an article written for the blog, Napolitano says that “the power to regulate for health, safety, welfare, and morality” should be “reposed with the states,” and that there should be “no federal police power” whatever.

But is such a position really tenable or is it a way in which the Constitution has become inadequate for modern life? Can each state reasonably be expected to inspect all roads, buses, trains, elevators, bridges, airplanes, foods, and medicines, as well as deal with epidemics, air pollution, drug enforcement, and forest fires? Is it plausible to have as many as fifty different standards in the same country governing each of these needs?  And does it make sense to say that even where these issues cross state lines the federal government is to have “no police power” as Napolitano asserts?

An Approach to Public Justice that is Almost 500 Years Old

In matters of health and safety, as in so many others, we continue to be hobbled by the way the writers of the Constitution replaced the Calvinist idea of sphere sovereignty with the idea of competing governments as the chief means of forestalling totalitarian governance. And the course of history since has shown just how unworkable it can be to have fifty legislatures and police forces enacting and enforcing contrary laws within the same nation. (As an example, see the American Bar Association’s article regarding the ethics of the marijuana laws now in effect.)

Sphere Sovereignty

“Sphere Sovereignty” is the name Abraham Kuyper gave to John Calvin’s insight that the New Testament recognizes a number of distinct kinds of God-given authorities in human life: the authority of parents in a family, owners in a business, clergy in the church, and officials in the state, for example. Each type of authority relates to a particular aspect of life that is its proper “sphere.” Then each type should enjoy a relative immunity from interference by the other types of authority. Moreover, there is no one type that is supreme over the others or the source of all the others. The reason for that is only God is supreme over them all and the source of them all.

Consequently, government must not do what Calvin called “over leap the prescribed bounds” of its proper authority.  Its proper sphere is recognized to be that of public justice. This means that the way to avoid totalitarian government is by framing our laws so as to restrict governmental power to matters of public justice.  Instead, we have attempted this  by creating competing states within the same body politic. Calvin puts it this way:

Hence, he only who directs his life to [God’s calling] will have it

properly framed; because free from the impulse of rashness, he will

not attempt more than his calling justifies, knowing that it is unlawful

to over leap the prescribed bounds… The magistrate will more willingly

perform his office, and the father of a family confine himself to his

proper sphere… (Inst. III, x, 6)

For though the Lord declares that a ruler to maintain our safety is the

highest gift of His beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves

their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever

description they may be, they derive their power from none but him.

(Inst. IV, xx, 25)


On this view, the central issue for government is not whether there is one or many or how big a government is, but whether it recognizes its authority as limited to the sphere of public justice. Having one overarching government that recognizes its proper limits beats having fifty little ones that don’t. The central issue for health care is whether it is a public injustice to leave millions of citizens without access to the means of safeguarding the very first right the Declaration guarantees to them. 

Roy Clouser                                        Roy Clouser

Resident Philosopher at Christian Leaders Institute

Professor Emeritus of The College of New Jersey

Former Trustee of the Center for Public Justice.



Christmas Reflections for Ordinary Folk

Emotional Power for Ordinary Folk

Perhaps it’s just a sign of age, but every year I find the Christmas story more emotionally power-packed than the year before.  Christmas is decidedly poignant for ordinary folk when reflecting on the event. Perhaps our post Christmas reflections reveal more about what is important than all the hype leading up to Christmas. The emotions stirred up inside us by the Christmas event speak louder than the jingling registers at the checkout.

Sure, the celebrations are grossly commercialized, cheapened by over-decoration. Christmas is slickly packaged for movies and TV, and even declared illegal in government buildings.  And it’s partly eclipsed by the charming 19th century fairy story a New England father wrote for his children. But – so far at least – it hasn’t been completely stifled. Just when it seems about to be replaced by its own trappings, the real story shines through again. I hear a section of the Messiah on the radio, the words of a carol in a shopping mall, a picture on a greeting card, or Linus’ moving recital of Luke 2 in Charley Brown’s Christmas. (see the video here)

This year, this is different

What hit me this year harder than ever before was how the central characters of that story are such absolutely ordinary folk going about their everyday lives. And then I realize how its message is still for ordinary folk going about their everyday lives.  We now think of Mary and Joseph as famous. But, actually, to their friends and relatives they were no different from thousands of other pious Jews awaiting the coming of the Messiah.  The baby Jesus looked and behaved like any other newborn. The business about their having to use a manger for a crib shows how far they were from being celebrities.

To be sure, Jesus’ birth itself was a miracle.  But at the time only Mary and Joseph knew that.  The only other thing that was out of the ordinary was the appearance of angels to announce it.  And look where they went to do it! They didn’t go to Rome to talk with the Emperor. The angels did not go to Jerusalem to discuss theology with the Chief Priest.  They didn’t appear to the loyal Jewish underground seeking to overthrow oppressive Roman rule. Nor did they go to historians to make sure all was recorded properly.  Instead they went a few Joe Average blue-collar workers who’d pulled the night shift on a Judean hillside – men who are not even named in the story!

What God thinks of Ordinary Folk….

By having the angels declare the Great Gift from Heaven in this way God shows us just what he thinks of human power, fame, wealth, pomp, and wisdom.  He says, in effect, that since his gift is to all people it just won’t matter which ones he picks to be the representative recipients of his birth announcement.

Every year I feel more like a shepherd.

Roy Clouser

God Is Real: A Philosophical Approach

The subject of this entire blog is whether  we can know God is real;  we will be taking a philosophical approach to the question of God and his existence. When we are surrounded with cultural agnosticism, we debate the question of God while having no real personal knowledge to enlighten our conversations. The answer this blog will give to the question of God is, “Yes., we CAN know God is real!”

How many questions can we answer?

Questions Questions

It is intended for those who believe in God but are confused about their intellectual right to that belief.  And this blog is for those who do not believe in God but are willing to inquire as to whether there is more to it than blind faith. It will also be of interest to anyone who is simply curious about the subject.

Is This Acceptable In Polite Conversation?

Neither the question posed nor the answer that will be defended is considered a topic for polite conversation these days. Religion seems to have changed places with sex as a taboo subject in public. It’s all right to acknowledge that there are such things as religious beliefs, but only so long as we don’t go into any further detail. The least acceptable form of going into further detail would be a discussion such as the one that will take place here. Which discussion is that?  A consideration of how to tell which, if any, of those beliefs are true and which are false.

In fact, many people nowadays even regard the thought that some beliefs may be true and others false as reprehensible.  Unfortunately, too many people know very little about the tradition they personally are most familiar with, and absolutely nothing about other traditions. These same people are, nevertheless, certain that all religious beliefs may be true at once. They’re also quite sure that “faith” means accepting a belief without knowing it’s true. As a result, they see a Berlin Wall between faith and all we can truly be said to know – such as science. ( For a description of the actual Berlin Wall which has become a literary metaphor, see )

Is Religious Belief a Mere Invention to Frighten Others?

Another thing a great many people are sure of is that religious belief was invented as a scare story to reinforce ethics. The ethic found in the Bible is OK; who would disagree with the Ten Commandments that murder, theft, dishonesty, and so on, are wrong? But on the other hand, who needs the scare story? Why do we often suppose people won’t be ethical unless they’re told that there’s a big Umpire in the sky? Will this Umpire  penalize them in the next life even if they escape retribution for their wrongdoing in this life? After all, the reasoning goes, we know firsthand that we are ethical without repeatedly hearing the scare story. As a result these indiviuals consider that scare story to be irrational and useless. It is then advocated that what we really need to do is keep on enforcing that Berlin Wall.  The hope is that one day the advance of science will cause religious beliefs – all of them – to fade away and relieve the world of a needless source of tension. (For John Lennon’s hymn which gives the underlying “scriptural” text for this belief and has been viewed nearly 100 million times, see

The only trouble with these gems of popular wisdom is that they are all wholly false.

Our discussions on this site will show how clarifying the nature of religious belief can a llow us to see that, under the right circumstances, religious belief can have the same kind of justification that is enjoyed by beliefs that have long been considered to be the most certain we have. Thus if justified certainty warrants us in saying we have knowledge, then belief in God can also be knowledge. In that case it is not merely wishful thinking, blind trust, or a scare story invented to promote ethics. (A discussion of this concept and its resulting affirmations can be found at )

The Need for Clarification

What is more, clarifying what counts as a religious belief makes it plausible that no one can really avoid it, though this fact goes unrecognized for two reasons. The first is that such beliefs can be unconscious assumptions. The second is that many people call their religious belief by another name. In both cases people think they have no religious belief when actually they do.

The clarification of the nature of religious belief also makes it possible to see why it cannot successfully be walled off from the rest of knowledge. The fact is, religious belief is one of the most influential beliefs people hold. This belief effects not only their conceptions of human nature and destiny, but also their ideas of society, justice, ethics, and even how they do science.

Looking forward to discussing this with many readers,

Roy Clouser

Prof. Emeritus

The College of New Jersey

Blog Philosopher-in-residence

Roy Clouser on American National Character

Is There an American National Character?

Is There an American National Character?

There’s an old joke that goes like this. In heaven, the French are the cooks, the English are the police, the Italians are the lovers, and the Germans organize everything. In hell, the English are the cooks, the French are the police, the Germans are the lovers, and the Italians organize everything.

These are, of course, merely generalizations that do not excuse prejudging others on the basis of their ethnicity. But there is an element of truth in each generalization that makes the joke funny.

Many years ago, as a student, I had an opportunity to live in Europe for a while and heard a lot of criticism of the US. Almost daily I heard: “the U.S. is like this;” or “the U.S. always does that;” “what the U.S. really wants is such and such.” And inevitably the general characterizations always struck me as wrong. I often felt like interjecting: “No, that’s not us!” Usually, however, I held my peace.

But incidents such as those started me thinking. How would I circumscribe the national character of the U.S.? Is there really an overriding National feature that is uniquely American? After pondering that question for quite a while, it seemed to me that there is such a characteristic and that its nature helps explain why it is so often misread as something else. I find that overriding characteristic in the US is extreme competitiveness. That, needless to say, is often mistaken for hostility. What comes across to people not raised with this American ethos is “We will beat you at anything. It doesn’t matter whether it’s war, business, productivity – and charity as well!” And this is usually taken to imply that Americans think they’re better than everyone else.

Nowhere else that I have been in all the years since that first European stay (15 countries and counting), appears to be so clearly infected as the US with the belief that: for any issue whatever, everyone is either a winner or a loser and there can only be one winner.

Now there surely are circumstances under which it’s appropriate that we are called upon to do our best and have our best judged by comparison to everyone else’s best; in games, for example. But there is a huge difference between playing a game for fun, and playing a game as though our personal worth (and that of our opponent) hangs in the balance. There is also a difference between trying to do one’s best in the work that earns our living, and doing one’s best to make everyone else look inferior. The difference, in each case, is precisely the core of the Christian ethic: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The commandment of love works for the whole of life, while “win at all costs” is a disaster in a marriage, a family, a school, a church, a charity, and, yes, even in a business.

One of the best-known defenders of the ethic of competition was the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. It was his position that all people are naturally in competition with everyone else all the time and in every respect. That is what he called everyone’s “natural” condition. He described this condition in a phrase he made famous: homo homini luipus(man is a wolf to man). Hobbes saw nothing ethically wrong with that condition, though he had to admit that it made life “solitary, poor, nasty brutish, and short.”

But the Christian religion sees plenty wrong with that condition and depicts it as the consequence of sin. Instead of “defeat your neighbor in everything” Christ demands that we love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves. Rather than seeing all of life as a contest and every person a winner or a loser, it sees our lives as properly lived when we obey God’s calling

for us – whatever that may be. Instead of esteeming only those who are in the public eye as “real people,” our dear Lord’s example showed that we are to consider ourselves the servants of all.

John Calvin once eloquently summed up the Christian attitude this way:

            Therefore, lest all things be thrown into confusion by our folly and rashness, [God] has assigned distinct duties to each [person] in the different modes of life. And that no one may presume to overstep his proper limits,

He has distinguished the different modes of life by the name of callings.[Everyone’s] mode of life, therefore is a kind of station assigned to him by the Lord, that he may not always be driven about at random… free from the impulse of rashness, he will not attempt more than his calling justifies, knowing it is unlawful to overleap the prescribed bounds.

He who is obscure will not decline to cultivate a private life, that he may not desert the post at which God has placed him… The magistrate will more willingly perform his office, and the father of a family confine himself to his proper sphere. Everyone in his particular mode of life will, without repining, suffer its inconveniences, cares, uneasiness, and anxiety, persuaded that God has laid on the burden.

This too, will afford admirable consolation, that in following your properc alling, no work will be so mean or sordid as not to have splendor in the eye of God. (Institutes, III, x, 6)