It is interesting to reflect when a topic bursts into public view and comes to dominate public discussion: Why nationalism now?

The most profound and powerful reasons for religious freedom are Christian reasons, and they extend not only to Christians but to all people. In my view this means that there is also a deep theological warrant for international religious freedom.

After centuries of declarations upholding the importance of religious freedom, why are we still issuing declarations?

Providence continues to look back at how American Christians thought through the challenges of World War II 75 years ago. In this article that Christianity & Crisis originally published on May 17, 1943, Henry P. Van Dusen proclaims that the postwar peace would rely on international consensus.

The much-maligned League of Nations experienced difficulties and shortcomings, which are visible in the functioning of the modern UN – and to a lesser extent, the International Criminal Court. George Stewart provides no less than thirteen reasons for the League’s failure, foremost among them the United States’ refusal to join, despite President Wilson’s labors as the prime architect. Stewart’s criticism of the League’s weaknesses, in its simultaneous impotence and incompetence, serves as a reminder for the need of robust, yet practical, international structures.

This article, delineating the two kinds of freedom found in the tradition of Western civilization, was originally published in Christianity and Crisis on October 19th, 1942. Editor Henry P. Van Dusen clarifies the two strands of freedom that have developed in European thought. One comes from the Protestant Reformation, a freedom that comes as a result of being created in God’s image and the rights that entail; the other comes from the Enlightenment, a freedom that is intrinsic to man’s nature and “self-evident,” something that is somehow apparent to all.

Buzz has begun about a possible U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council. It is no wonder; the Human Rights Council is largely a sham.

Samuel Moyn’s Christian Human Rights argues that human rights should not be associated exclusively with the secular liberal left and liberal politics when the Christian right was historically involved with this project.