<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Joshua Schulz</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/joshua-schulz</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/joshua-schulz" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:53:43 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>False Enlightenment at the Court</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/false-enlightenment-at-the-court</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/false-enlightenment-at-the-court</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>In 
<em style="color: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; letter-spacing: 0.01em; background-color: initial;">Obergefell v. Hodges</em>
, Justice Kennedy has penned&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">a decision</a>
 of historic hubris and stupidity&shy;&mdash;as both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia argue in their dissents. The basis of the decision is a claim to 
<em style="color: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; letter-spacing: 0.01em; background-color: initial;">special enlightenment</em>
 (we shall not say &ldquo;revelation&rdquo;) about the meaning and import of liberty&mdash;special because the majority claims access to essential truths about marriage, sex and liberty heretofore unavailable to all peoples in the entire history of the world.
<br>
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/false-enlightenment-at-the-court">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Marriage and Dignity</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/05/marriage-and-dignity</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/05/marriage-and-dignity</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Recent&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf">arguments</a>
 at the Supreme Court revealed deep confusion about the nature of dignity. Arguing that &ldquo;the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone,&rdquo; but rather &ldquo;to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology,&rdquo; attorney James J. Bursch described the push to legalize same-sex marriage as the desire to &ldquo;take an institution that was never intended to be dignity-bestowing, and make it dignity-bestowing.&rdquo; Justice Kennedy responded with suitable confusion: &ldquo;I don't understand this &lsquo;not dignity-bestowing.&rsquo; I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage.  It&rsquo;s dignity-bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that, that same ennoblement.&rdquo; 
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/05/marriage-and-dignity">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Justice Bosson and the Prostitution of Religious Belief</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/justice-bosson-and-the-prostitution-of-religious-belief</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/justice-bosson-and-the-prostitution-of-religious-belief</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>  
<img style="margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" src="http://d2ipgh48lxx565.cloudfront.net/userImages/9076/mb01_jd_25feb_bosson-450x312%20(1).jpg" alt="bosson">
  
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/justice-bosson-and-the-prostitution-of-religious-belief">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Summa Contra Dowd</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/03/summa-contra-dowd</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/03/summa-contra-dowd</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> In &#147; 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/opinion/dowd-courting-cowardice.html"> Courting Cowardice </a>
 ,&#148; published this week in the  
<em> New York Times </em>
 , Maureen Dowd attacks the natural law argument that since marriage is for procreation, homosexual couples are de facto incapable of being married. She does this by offering several counterexamples echoing those given by members of the Supreme Court this week. She writes: 
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/03/summa-contra-dowd">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
