Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) possessed wide-ranging interests and a unique penchant for intellectual synthesis which understandably commended him to a far broader audience than is normally accorded theologians in this desacralized age. Niebuhr's orientation was theology and politics, and by his own admission, he saw himself working out of the context of Christian social ethics. Precisely because this was the framework of his labors, Niebuhr figured and continues to figure prominently among those persons whose interests center upon social, political, and ethical concerns so pertinent to the domain of law. Niebuhr neither fashioned himself a legal expert, nor did he conceive of himself as a legal theorist. Nonetheless, because of his standing in contemporary Protestantism, and because of his orientation as a theologian of social ethics, Niebuhr finds himself in the rather select circle of theologians who have something of note to say about the place of law in the affairs of humankind.

Political theorist Hans Morgenthau called Niebuhr “the greatest living political philosopher of America, perhaps the only creative political philosopher since Calhoun.” In this context, Gordon Harland makes the point that Niebuhr's “theological and political thought forms one consistent whole: and that there is a “vital organic relation between Niebuhr's social and political thought and the ultimate reaches of his theological reflections.” It is because Niebuhr spoke with conviction out of the Biblical tradition that he was concerned about the relationship of love to law. And precisely because he spoke convincingly as a political realist, he was concerned with the relationship between justice and law. But in speaking as both theologian and political realist, Niebuhr's approach to the problem of law was articulated in terms of the dialectical relationship between love and justice.

“[T]he estate of marriage has fallen into awful disrepute,” Martin Luther declared in 1522.

There are many pagan books which treat of nothing but the depravity of womankind and the unhappiness of the estate of marriage. … Every day one encounters parents who forget their former misery because, like the mouse, they have now had their fill. They deter their children from marriage and entice them into priesthood and nunnery, citing the trials and troubles of married life. Thus do they bring their own children home to the devil, as we daily observe; they provide them with ease for the body and hell for the soul.

Furthermore,

the shameful confusion wrought by the accursed papal law has occasioned so much distress, and the lax authority of both the spirituai and the temporal swords has given rise to so many dreadful abuses and false situations that I would much prefer neither to look into the matter nor to hear of it. But timidity is no help in an emergency.

The great and chief end … of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property (John Locke).

The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalist private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into socialized property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. (Karl Marx).

Conditions of the common life of peoples have undergone a radical transformation from the seventeenth century to the present. The character of daily work, the form of family life, the structure of nations and empires in our times are fundamentally unlike those of three centuries ago. In the economic sector, property is among the categories of thought and practice whose features have been transfigured during the period.

Since the giving of the law on Mount Sinai more than three thousand years ago, a distinct legal system has governed the Jewish people. One of the areas included in Jewish law is domestic relations. As a result, when an American Jewish couple marries in a Jewish ceremony two distinct legal systems recognize the marriage: American civil law and Jewish law. If the marital relationship breaks down and one or both parties want a divorce American law requires that the moving party brings an action in a court of law. Assuming proper grounds exist, the court will order a divorce and American law will consider the marriage terminated. Jewish law, however, will consider the parties still married until such time as distinct Jewish legal procedures are performed. Jewish law requires that the husband give his wife a bill of divorcement, known as a get. If the husband refuses to give his wife a get, she cannot remarry in accordance with Jewish law. Such a woman, in Jewish terminology, is an Agunah, a chained woman.

With the increase of divorces in American Jewish society has come an increased number of Agunot. A further result has been legal activity, in courts and at least one legislature, to encourage or even force a recalcitrant husband to give his wife a get.

The purpose of this survey is to note important caselaw developments in the state and lower federal courts concerning religious liberty. Purposely omitted are the widely reported United States Supreme Court opinions, as well as cases where the high court has granted review during its 1986-87 term. The focus here is to collect significant cases that may otherwise escape broad attention. Only the facts and rationale of each court's decision is recorded. No editorial comment on the merits of these cases is intended.

Minnesota v. Porter Farms, Inc., 382 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 1986).

A Minnesota appeals court has upheld an administrative law judge's ruling that an employee was unlawfully discharged because of his marital status. Randy Fitzloff brought suit under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363.01 et seq., claiming that he was discharged from his employment as a farm laborer because he was living with a woman to whom he was not married. Suit was brought against Porter Farms and James Sorenson, who was found to be acting as its agent. Fitzloff, who was employed to help Sorenson with the operation of a farm, lived in a trailer near Sorenson's home. After discovering that Fitzloff was not married to the woman, Sorenson informed him that he was “living in sin” and would have to make a major decision within seven days and carry it out within two months. When again confronted, Fitzloff informed Sorenson that he would probably be getting married but not within two months. Sorenson then purportedly told FitzlofF “you're through.” Fitzloff interpreted the statement as meaning that he was fired and claimed that Sorenson's act constituted discrimination.