The church and the Constitution: Is there room for interpretation?

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has made national headlines for weeks after refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples in her county in Kentucky, despite a Supreme Court ruling requiring the licenses to be granted. Her refusal on religious grounds has sparked a nationwide controversy about religious liberty and the separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution. 

The debate about whether the Constitution guarantees a wall of separation between church and state or if the Constitution was written for a Christian nation with Christian values will take center stage September 24 when the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley hosts, "The Constitution and Religion: Allies, Adversaries, or Something Else?" 

The discussion will focus on the legal and social questions surrounding the Supreme Court and religious beliefs. Bruce Frohnen, a constitutional law expert and professor from Ohio Northern University's Pettit College of Law, will lead the discussion. Frohnen will look behind the debate and consider if the Constitution allows individual communities to make their own decisions on divisive moral topics. 

"The Constitution and Religion: Allies, Adversaries, or Something Else?"

Keynote by Bruce Frohnen

September 24

7 p.m.

Loosemore Auditorium, DeVos Center Building A 

Pew Grand Rapids Campus, 401 W. Fulton St., Grand Rapids

The free public lecture is part of the Hauenstein Center's Common Ground Initiative as well as its annual Constitution Day series, in which constitutional and legal experts are asked to look at the Constitution from different vantage points. 

“Debates about the Constitution and the role of religious belief in society are often fierce," said Joseph Hogan, program manager of the Common Ground Initiative. "Dr. Frohnen will take a step back and encourage us to think deeply about these issues. The questions he asks will certainly elicit diverse responses; in all cases, they will challenge us to think critically about our Constitution.”