Maddox Larson

The question of church-state separation has haunted America since her founding. James Madison and select founding fathers suggest that religions and states are better off when they minimize (or altogether eliminate) their interactions. Many Muslims in Iran, for instance, believe the opposite – aligning state functions with religious motives results in the most effective state. In this paper, I propose a model of thinking about church-state separation in which states and religions must maintain epistemic vulnerability to allow legal, political, and socio-religious change. Simply put, epistemic vulnerability is an attitude of susceptibility to new sources and instances of knowledge. I present institutions as sets of constraints which interact with shared mental models. In this way, I explain how cultural institutions limit and shape individuals’ susceptibility to new knowledge. The more accommodating a religion is to self-assessment when confronted with new knowledge aids in forming institutions that are reliable, efficient, and robust for groups to grow and adopt new ideas. This results in a model of state-religion that highlights the impact on epistemic vulnerability when either religious organizations or state governance expand their responsibilities outside of their proper functions.

In this article, we explore two related questions. First, under what conditions, if any, can a Black person trust a white person to be a reliable ally in the context of a society founded on racial slavery? Second, under what conditions, if any, can a Black person trust a white person to be a reliable ally in the context of a white supremacist society? We follow Karen Jones and Nancy Nyquist Potter in arguing that allies must not only be competent, conscientious, and accurately self-assess their epistemic capacities, but they must also signal their trustworthiness in advance to those who would trust them. Furthermore, we argue based on our readings of the slave narratives of Mary Prince, Harriet Jacobs, and Frederick Douglass that allies must display social awareness of the social context that they share with those who would trust them and the power dynamics involved in that social context.

The Black Panther Party is now commonly associated with violence; however, this was far from what they aimed to represent. The Party was aimed at total social and political reconstruction and, their larger point, creating an equitable society in which Black Americans could thrive. The criticism which the Party faced (and still faces) was through their use of “armed self-defense” and methods of political violence. From a philosophical perspective, many interesting questions can be considered when evaluating the morality of the utilization of armed self-defense. In this paper, I will use Just War Theory to answer the question: can non-state actors be justified in their usage of violence against states? Specifically, I will claim that the Black Panther Party’s use of armed self-defense and political, physical violence was morally justified under an expanded just war theoretic. To do this, I will first analyze political violence and resistance to clarify how my account will understand the two and their potential overlap. Next, I will clarify Just War Theory and provide thorough discussion of the “competent authority” criterion and argue that select non-state actors can be competent authorities. Finally, I will apply my expanded just war theoretic to the case of the Black Panther Party and their use of armed self-defense.

American history has been far from kind to Black and African Americans. As a group, they were subjected to the gruesome, racist human rights violations committed during the period of American slavery, then Jim Crow laws, economic and political rights violations, medical experimentation, redlining, and lack of representation in politics all came to remind Black Americans that their fight for equality was far from over. Recent periods of activism, however, have brought some of the current plights of Black Americans to the forefront of media coverage. One such example is the greater Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy found among minority groups – specifically Black and African American communities. Despite the variety of implications such an issue has, literature surrounding the issue is relatively one-sided – often looking only at public health and medical education implications. This paper will analyze previous literature on institutional and political trust and epistemic norms, then apply them to the issue of Black American Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy. First, analyzing previous literature on institutions and trust to differentiate institutional trust from trust’s other forms. Then, developing this conception of institutional trust by applying epistemic normativity (Kauppinen 2018). Then, create an application of this conception of institutional trust to the case of Black hesitancy to Covid-19 vaccines. Finally, concludes with educational and political implications of this theory.

This paper will explore the notion that religiously justified acts have often been the source of great harm. From the continued persecution of the LGBTQ community to acts like the Waco incident and in extreme cases, even genocide can often stem from religious belief. There does exist, however, a more generalized, noncentralized belief system (which I call “spirituality”) which seeks similar motives as most organized religions, but rarely—if ever—leads towards such terrifying and monstrous acts. In this paper, I pose that modern organized religion can learn from the individualized focus of spiritualities to create a more open practice which would allow for more personal reflection before engagement in the congregation and, I pose, would lead to less horrendous acts of physical and cultural violence. Neither religion, nor spirituality is wavering in the modern world, so why not learn to use them to benefit the greater society, rather than using them as reasons to harm others? This should be a larger focus of religious congregations—the manner in which they interact with others about their beliefs.