Acton Institute Powerblog

PowerLinks 06.14.13

Share this article:
Join the Discussion:

God and Man in Russia
Seth Mandel, Commentary

Putin is not meting out such punishment to defend or to glorify the church. He is taking a wrecking ball to the church once again, even if only metaphorically. By tying the Russian Orthodox Church to his regime’s repression, he is ruining it in the public consciousness.

Anti-NSA Conservative, Choose: Antonin Scalia’s Originalism or Rand Paul’s Living Constitutionalism
Carl Scott, Postmodern Conservative

[Y]ou gotta choose: Paul’s libertarian living constitutionalism or Scalia’s originalism. You don’t get to be an originalist only when it lines up with your policy preferences or political philosophy.

Welfare in the Roman Empire: Deja Vu All Over Again

Corporate and personal welfare in the Roman empire was very real, rather common, and, compared to current history, extremely surprising.

God the Entrepreneur
Brian Baugus, Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics

Throughout the history of Christianity a sort of Christian hierarchy of accepted vocations emerged. At the top are those that answered “the call,” such as missionaries and others in full time church employment.

Joe Carter Joe Carter is a Senior Editor at the Acton Institute. Joe also serves as an editor at the The Gospel Coalition, a communications specialist for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. He is the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible and co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator (Crossway).


  • RogerMcKinney

    I think Scott’s stance is the “living” Constitution position, not Paul’s. Scott seems to take the view that the government can do anything that the Constitution doesn’t limit, but my reading of the Constitution says the government can only do what the Constitution allows and is prohibited from doing anything else.

    The larger issue is who should we fear most, criminals or the state? If you were a tribal person or black person in the 19th century you would say the state. History proves that citizens have more to fear from the state than they do from criminals. But because the state in the US has been relatively benign toward the majority they don’t see it that way. Only minorities, racial and political, have anything to fear from the state.

    But the majority should understand that fear of crime has been the open door to totalitarianism where it has existed and the US is no exception.