Although it is often charged with hostility toward religion, First Amendment doctrine in fact treats religion as a distinctive human good. It insists, however, that this good be understood abstractly, without the state taking sides on any theological question. Here, a leading scholar of constitutional law explains the logic of this uniquely American form of neutrality—more religion-centered than liberal theorists propose, and less overtly theistic than conservatives advocate. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion is under threat. Growing numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, seem ready to cast aside the ideal of American religious neutrality. Andrew Koppelman defends that ideal and explains why protecting religion from political manipulation is imperative in an America of growing religious diversity. Understanding American religious neutrality, Koppelman shows, can explain some familiar puzzles. How can Bible reading in public schools be impermissible while legislative sessions begin with prayers, Christmas is an official holiday, and the words “under God” appear in the Pledge of Allegiance? Are faith-based social services, public financing of religious schools, or the teaching of intelligent design constitutional? Combining legal, historical, and philosophical analysis, Koppelman shows how law coherently navigates these conundrums. He explains why laws must have a secular legislative purpose, why old, but not new, ceremonial acknowledgments of religion are permitted, and why it is fair to give religion special treatment.

While First Amendment doctrine treats religion as a human good, the state must not take sides on theological questions. Koppelman explains the logic of this uniquely American form of neutrality: why it is fair to give religion special treatment, why old (but not new) religious ceremonies are permitted, and why laws must have a secular purpose.

The small neutral states of Europe have until now only marginally been included in the historiography of the First World War. This volume deals in depth with The Netherlands, and specifically its war preparations. Being a small country close to the battlefield of the Western Front, it could not be sure its neutrality would be repected by the warring states. How did the country prepare itself militarily and how did these preparations differ from the way the warring states adjusted to the reality of modern, total war? Was modern, technological warfare even possible for small states and if not, in what way could it ensure its survival when the worst came to worst? This volume analyses technological innovation, intelligence and ideas on the societal and political impact of modern warfare in The Netherlands before, during and after the Great War.

Against Perfectionism defends neutralist liberalism as the most appropriate political morality for democratic societies.

Prominent historian and former President of the Swiss Confederation Georges-Andr Chevallaz begins his study of Swiss neutrality during World War II with two essential questions: Why, in the face of German imperialism ”with its authoritarian, totalitarian, and racist ideology ”did Switzerland declare neutrality? Why did it not join the "camp of democracies," or the other European nations who resolved to hold firm against the Germans? Chevallaz's provocative and insightful book, presented here for the first time in English, attempts to answer these questions. Chevallaz further offers an even-handed reevaluation of the role of the principal actors in Swiss politics of the time, notably Marcel Pilet-Golaz, head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and General Henri Guisan.

In a democracy, political authority should be determined independently of religious, philosophical, and ethical ideals that often divide us. This idea, called liberal neutrality, challenges one of the oldest insights of the Western philosophical tradition in politics. At least since Plato, the concept of perfectionism has insisted that statecraft is akin to "soulcraft," and political questions about the justification of state power have followed from ethical questions about what is valuable in life and about how we should live if we are to live well. Against Perfectionism defends neutralist liberalism as the most appropriate political morality for democratic societies. Steven Lecce investigates the theoretical foundations of liberalism, bringing together classic and contemporary arguments about the implications of pluralism for liberal equality. He surveys three classic debates over the grounds and limits of tolerance, and investigates the limits of perfectionism as a guide to law and public policy in pluralist societies. Lecce ultimately suggests a version of neutrality that answers the critiques recently leveled against it as a political ideal. Presenting sophisticated and groundbreaking arguments, Against Perfectionism is a call to rethink current concepts of law and public policy in democratic societies.

In 1908, after decades of struggling with a public administration undermined by systemic patronage, the Canadian parliament decided that public servants would be selected on the basis of merit, through a system administered by an independent agency: the Public Service Commission of Canada. This history, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Commission, recounts its unique contribution to the development of an independent public service, which has become a pillar of Canadian parliamentary democracy.