
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
-46% $16.19$16.19
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Save with Used - Good
$11.62$11.62
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Books For You Today

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable
Color:
-
-
-
- To view this video download Flash Player
-
-
VIDEO
-
Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination
Purchase options and add-ons
This point-counterpoint book brings together leading voices in the culture wars to debate such questions: John Corvino, a longtime LGBT-rights advocate, opposite Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, prominent young social conservatives.
Many such questions have arisen in response to same-sex marriage: How should we treat county clerks who do not wish to authorize such marriages, for example; or bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to provide same-sex wedding services? But the conflicts extend well beyond the LGBT rights arena. How should we treat hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies that can't in conscience follow antidiscrimination laws, healthcare mandates, and other regulations? Should corporations ever get exemptions? Should public officials?
Should we keep controversial laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or pass new ones like the First Amendment Defense Act? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? What counts as discrimination, and when is it unjust? What kinds of material and dignitary harms should the law try to fight-and what is dignitary harm, anyway?
Beyond the law, how should we treat religious beliefs and practices we find mistaken or even oppressive? Should we tolerate them or actively discourage them?
In point-counterpoint format, Corvino, Anderson and Girgis explore these questions and more. Although their differences run deep, they tackle them with civility, clarity, and flair. Their debate is an essential contribution to contemporary discussions about why religious liberty matters and what respecting it requires.
- ISBN-100190603070
- ISBN-13978-0190603076
- PublisherOxford University Press
- Publication dateJune 1, 2017
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions8.1 x 0.9 x 5.4 inches
- Print length352 pages
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Frequently bought together

Popular titles by this author
Editorial Reviews
Review
"One of the most important debates in our time is that it of religious liberty as it relates to controversies over sexuality and marriage. Sadly, usually most Americans don't have these debates at all, content to stay in our silos and never engage with those who disagree with us. This book is different. Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and John Corvino model how to hold strong (very strong) opinions while debating others with respect. This book will equip you, wherever you stand, on how the "other side" from you thinks. If American society follows the lead of this book, our culture wars won't end, but they just might be kinder and smarter. That's a good start." -- Russell Moore, President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
"Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, is a direct challenge to our cultural moment, opting for careful analysis over clickbait, mutual understanding over demonization, and clearly demarcated disagreement over sweeping dismissal. The authors take the time to lay out their best arguments, then respond to the best arguments of their opponents. Whether or not the book ultimately causes readers to change their views is not the measure of its success. The authors provide a desperately needed model for engagement: they argue with, not at their opponent; they argue together...For a nation that seems more divided than ever, that's a great place to start." --Commonweal Magazine"...the U.S. remains a large country with citizens of many religions, diametrically opposed opinions, and lifestyles that will inevitably clash. Given that conflict is unavoidable, the authors agree that we ought to foster a culture in which we can seek common ground and conduct debate on the plane of ideas and policy, rather than descend into endless painful lawsuits or bitter social-media feuds with our ideological opponents. Corvino, Anderson, and Girgis illustrate in this compelling book that such a judicious debate can take place and can generate fruitful conversation, as well as delineate areas of authentic agreement and practical compromise. And, perhaps even better than that, they give us the tools we can use to find those agreements and compromises ourselves."--National Review"Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination...raises the plausibility of living with greater diversity of thought on fundamental issues in civil society. Learning to tolerate religious disagreement has been a signal achievement of liberal societies, and if we can live together with mutually exclusive--but also reciprocally respectful--religious systems thriving in civil society, why can't we expand the scope of that tolerance to include other moral and social issues that divide us?" --LA Review of Books"... all three authors deserve praise for tackling this subject in this way. They disagree civilly and engage with one another substantively and thoughtfully. In an age when discussions of religious liberty often devolve into cheap political point-scoring, the fact that elevated debate occurred with both charity and clarity is perhaps the ultimate value of this book. May it be a model to disputants on this and other heated subjects, for years to come." --The Weekly Standard
"Though the authors test the boundaries, they remain within the assumptions of American constitutional discourse and achieve a well-organized, clear, and civil exploration of the issues." - Sotirios A. Barber University of Notre Dame
About the Author
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He is author of Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom (Regnery, 2015), co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter, 2012) and co-editor of A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism (University of Notre Dame Press, 2017).
Sherif Girgis, J.D., is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Princeton and lead author (with Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George) of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books, 2012). He earned a law degree from Yale and a B.Phil. (M.Phil.) in philosophy from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
Product details
- Publisher : Oxford University Press
- Publication date : June 1, 2017
- Language : English
- Print length : 352 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0190603070
- ISBN-13 : 978-0190603076
- Item Weight : 12.8 ounces
- Dimensions : 8.1 x 0.9 x 5.4 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #467,561 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #276 in Social Philosophy
- #440 in Church & State Religious Studies
- #813 in Religious Philosophy (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Videos
Videos for this product
2:30
Click to play video
A Look Inside 'Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination'Merchant Video
About the authors
John Corvino, Ph.D. is Professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. He is the co-author (with Maggie Gallagher) of Debating Same-Sex Marriage and the author of What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?, both from Oxford University Press. His latest book, Debating Religious Liberty, Tolerance, and Bigotry (with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson co-authoring the counterpoint), will appear in Spring 2017.
Until 2011, Corvino’s column “The Gay Moralist” appeared weekly at 365gay.com; he has also contributed to The New York Times, the LA Times, the Advocate, the Huffington Post, The New Republic, and Commonweal. In the last twenty years he has spoken at over 200 campuses on issues of sexuality, ethics, and marriage. His YouTube videos have received over 1.3 million views. Read more at www.johncorvino.com.
Sherif Girgis is a research scholar at the Witherspoon Institute. He is coauthor of the book "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense" (Encounter Books, 2012), and of "Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination" (Oxford University Press, 2017). He earned his A.B. at Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude. After earning a master’s degree at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and a law degree from Yale, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, Girgis returned to Princeton to do a Ph.D. in philosophy, where he is currently completing his dissertation. Sherif has written on social issues in academic and popular venues, including Public Discourse, National Review, Commonweal, the New York Times, the Yale Law Journal, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and the Wall Street Journal, and has spoken at more than 80 lectures, conferences, and debates, both popular and academic.
Ryan T. Anderson is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Founding Editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey. A Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University, he earned his Ph.D. in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. Anderson’s research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two Supreme Court cases.
His work has been published by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Harvard Health Policy Review, the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, First Things, the Claremont Review of Books, and National Review.
Anderson has appeared on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and the Fox News Channel. In addition to a memorable 2013 debate about marriage on CNN's Piers Morgan Live, his news interviews include appearances on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CNN's New Day with Chris Cuomo, MSNBC's The Ed Show with Ed Schultz, and Fox News' Hannity.
Anderson is the John Paul II Teaching Fellow in Social Thought at the University of Dallas, a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University, and a Fellow of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America.
For 9 years he was the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and has served as an adjunct professor of philosophy and political science at Christendom College, and a Visiting Fellow at the Veritas Center at Franciscan University. He has also served as an assistant editor of First Things.
Follow him on Twitter: @RyanTAnd For his latest essays and videos, follow his public Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/RyanTAndersonPhD
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book readable, with one noting it's a must-read for Christians. Moreover, the debate content receives positive feedback, with customers praising its contribution to reasoned discussion and representation of both sides of the issue.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Select to learn more
Customers find the book readable and terrific, with one customer noting it is a must-read for Christians.
"...This book presents the clearest and most compelling case for both side readers can expect to see for some time to come...." Read more
"A great read with strong references to religious liberty and anti discrimination laws...." Read more
"It was OK. I expected a tighter, more accessible debate. The writing is just ok and at times self-indulgent...." Read more
"...Well worth the read!" Read more
Customers appreciate the debate content of the book, noting that both sides of the religious liberty and discrimination issues are well-represented and that it provides strong references to religious freedom.
"A fresh and compelling take on the debate, soon to become public, on the question of religious liberty opt-outs for antidiscrimination law...." Read more
"Serious and civil...." Read more
"...Anderson and Girgis, who provide a systematic and clear case for protecting religious liberties...." Read more
"A great read with strong references to religious liberty and anti discrimination laws...." Read more
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews. Please reload the page.
- Reviewed in the United States on June 11, 2017This isn't a book debating whether religious liberty is an important good or whether discrimination is right or wrong. The authors rightly agree religious liberty is important and that discrimination is bad. Where the authors disagree is the extent to which religious liberty claims can be used to justify exemptions from generally applicable laws/anti-discrimination ordinances.
Cornvino convincingly argues that, insofar as we as a society recognize that certain historically marginizaled groups require legal protects from discrimination, claims of "religious liberty" do not automatically get one exempted from having to follow the law. Though I personally disfavor exemptions from generally applicable laws (see Brain Leiter's "Why Tolerate Religion?"), Corvino argues that if we allow exemptions at all, we ought to allow for secular conscience exemptions, relaxing the concepts of "least restrictive means" and "compelling state interest" so as to limit the States burden in rejecting exemption claims, and rejecting exemption claims that burden historically marginizaled third-party groups. Corvino's case is highly sensible. He makes a strong case that many religious liberty claims today do not substantially burden the individual. For example, it's rather dubious for a baker to claim that they are complicit in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake. Corvino also strongly rebuts the libertarian line that businesses should have unlimited latitude in determining who to serve (as Corvino points out, this would undermine most if not all anti-discrimination law as well as undermine laws like forcing restaurant owners wear clothes while preparing food).
I had a hard time following the case made by Anderson and Girgis. They seemed to have bitten off more than they could chew. Their case seemed rushed in places and therefore relied heavily on both natural law and libertarian positions. Whereas Corvino made his case using generally agreed upon principles, Anderson and Girgis relied too often on contentious metaphysical, moral, and political principled, making their case hard to accept.
Overall, though, lots of food for thought.
- Reviewed in the United States on July 18, 2017A fresh and compelling take on the debate, soon to become public, on the question of religious liberty opt-outs for antidiscrimination law. Anderson and Girgis present a case for religion-based exemptions (RFRA, FADA) argued from first principles; Corvino graces his authors and the debate with an intelligent objection to these exemptions, a position rarely heard in the halls of the academe (where shrieking, politically correct activists impose hefty professional penalties on those who dare submit their orthodoxies to reasoned scrutiny), or in mainstream media (where sensationalism and reductionism dominates on both sides of the issue). This is a must read for anyone interested in getting a first handle on the debate.
Corvino's starting point is that objections to laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender-identity (i.e. "SOGI laws") might be grounded in reasonable and morally decent views. Ultimately though, he severely narrows the scope of these legitimate objections and expresses his doubts about the legitimacy of religious opt-outs, viewing them more as "religious privilege" than religious freedom. Anderson and Girgis appropriately approach the task from two directions, asking, first, whether the empirical or social realities make SOGI laws (which by their very nature are coercive) necessary, and second, whether these laws strike an appropriate balance between protecting the integrity of dissenters and meeting the legitimate public accommodation interests of LGBT people. They answer no to both questions.
While both positions in the debate have their strengths and weakness, ultimately I find that of Anderson and Girgis more compelling. As a matter of fact, LGBT Americans do not face anything near the realities that African-Americans faced in the 1950's and 1960's. For every evangelical florist who refuses to do a bouquet for a lesbian couple's wedding, there are likely to be 5 local florists who hang rainbow flags above their store fronts and offer same-sex discounts in response. In blue states, and in blue cities in red states, support for LGBT (and increasingly, -Q) causes is fast becoming a litmus tests for admission into decent company. All the incentives of the marketplace are aligned in their favor, too: Corporate America (most of Fortune 500), Big Law, the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, and most public school systems are now highly supportive (or at least tolerant) of gay rights.
Are there lingering areas of discrimination and disparity? Sure. But as Anderson and Girgis rightly suggest, that alone is not enough to mount a case for anti discrimination law, unless you view the law as an expression of values irrespective of its real-world implications (a question the authors never really discuss). The case for a need for legal "protections" is weak, and the case for such laws burdening a minority of Christian dissenters (who, one might suspect, are often being targeted for their views by the victors in the culture wars) is correspondingly strong. In short, your take on this fascinating debate will hinge, to a considerable extent, on who you think is the targeted and politically persecuted minority.
- Reviewed in the United States on December 4, 2019Serious and civil.
One dislike: the pro-religion authors allow the atheist author to frame the debate as religious liberties pushing outward against walls of legitimate rule-making as opposed to the parameters set by govt precepts (law, policy and judicial review) encroaching more and more into an area of constitutionally protected freedoms. Religious expression as part of one's daily life should be defended in this debate (the atheist author questions several court rulings, so that maneuver is not out of bounds for this discussion) followed by a reasoned push back against illegitimate policies, etc. After re-establishing the constitutional legitimacy of religious expression as part of one's daily life (and re-framing the debate outside the status quo), then tackle tough questions regarding discrimination, of which there are not a few.
Top reviews from other countries
-
Héctor Guillermo MuñozReviewed in Mexico on April 21, 2018
4.0 out of 5 stars Excelente diálogo desde ambas perspectivas
Estoy encantado con un formato tan innovador para dialogar temas complejos de manera civil y razonada; tenemos mucho qué aprender de los autores. Cada uno hace su mejor intento por argumentar su postura, y ambos lo hacen de una manera ordenada y con mucha destreza. Aunque me parece que una de las dos posturas resultó tener un poco más de fuerza hacia el final, creo que los autores de ambos lados del debate se encuentran en una misma liga y con muy buenos cuestionamientos para cualquiera.