Religious associations sometimes seek to provide services and goods to the public using religious values that discriminate on grounds otherwise prohibited by law and public values. 'Group pluralists' support these efforts by highlighting the importance of shielding group authority from state overreach and protecting a robust associational life within democratic contexts. By contrast, 'liberal statists' insist on the state's final authority over societal groups and the need to protect individuals from arbitrary group power. This paper defends a third approach to (...) group authority called relational pluralism. Relational pluralism is skeptical that the state can resolve group conflicts fully and fairly and recognizes that too much state interference in group life weakens democratic relations. At the same time, it recognizes that groups can rarely act independently of other groups, including the regulatory state. Instead, groups rely on being empowered by other groups and often also by the state to carry out their projects. Group authority is nearly always 'relational' in that it depends on the cooperation of other groups. The paper sketches out a relational pluralist approach to understanding group authority and explains its democratic virtues. It shows how the approach can illuminate otherwise underappreciated features of conflicts about authority. (shrink)

In this article, the author looks back at the Hobby Lobby case and shows the role of a desecularising theological scheme borrowed from Abraham Kuyper's apologetics, the "spheres of sovereignty" scheme. Long popular in the evangelical world and among members of the Christian right, this scheme has also been introduced into legal theory and philosophy of law, and it turns out that it was very well suited to the claims of the Green family, the multi-billionaires behind the Hobby Lobby case.