DOCSLIB.ORG

Solidarity Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Solidarity Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics Reflections on an emerging Solidarity concept in bioethics Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx Embargoed until 00:01 Wed 30 November 2011 This report was commissioned by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCoB) and was jointly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Nuffield Foundation. The award was managed by the Economic and Social Research Council on behalf of the partner organisations, and some additional funding was made available by NCoB. For the duration of six months in 2011, Professor Barbara Prainsack was the NCoB Solidarity Fellow, working closely with fellow author Dr Alena Buyx, Assistant Director of NCoB. Disclaimer The report, whilst funded jointly by the AHRC, the Nuffield Foundation and NCoB, does not necessarily express the views and opinions of these organisations; all views expressed are those of the authors, Professor Barbara Prainsack and Dr Alena Buyx. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is an independent body that examines and reports on ethical issues in biology and medicine. It is funded jointly by the Nuffield Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, and has gained an international reputation for advising policy makers and stimulating debate in bioethics. www.nuffieldbioethics.org The Nuffield Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social wellbeing in the widest sense. It funds research and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science research. www.nuffieldfoundation.org Established in April 2005, the AHRC is a non-Departmental public body. It supports world-class research that furthers our understanding of human culture and creativity. www.ahrc.ac.uk © Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx ISBN: 978-1-904384-25-0 November 2011 Printed in the UK by ESP Colour Ltd. Elgin Drive, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 8XU http://espcolour.co.uk Embargoed until 00:01 Wed 30 November 2011 Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding for this project from the Nuffield Foundation, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCoB), as well as the administration of the grant by the Economic and Social Research Council. The Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation, the Nuffield Foundation‘s Deputy Director Sharon Witherspoon MBE, the Chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Professor Albert Weale FBA, and the Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Hugh Whittall, all were instrumental in shaping the project and supporting the fellowship. Jonathan Breckon and Robert Keegan from the Arts and Humanities Council and Lesley Lilley from the Economic and Social Research Council administered the fellowship and had important input on the direction of the fellowship. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics supported the organisation of two workshops. The NCoB‘s Secretariat (Sarah Bougourd, Tom Finnegan, Kate Harvey, Carol Perkins, Johanna White, and particularly Varsha Jagadesham and Catherine Joynson) helped with these workshops, with the production of the final document and with the preparation of the launch event. The report benefitted greatly from the insightful comments and constructive feedback from current and former members of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, in particular Professor Roger Brownsword, Professor Robin Gill, Professor Søren Holm, Dr Tim Lewens, Dr Bronwyn Parry, Professor Nik Rose, Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern FBA and Professor Jonathan Wolff. We thank Professor Christopher Newdick for bringing the Condliff case to our attention and for supplying us with part of the case study (see Chapter 8). The authors also wish to thank all participants at the two workshops in May and July 2011 (a full list can be found at Annex 1), as well as Dr Misha Angrist, Professor Ruth Chadwick, Professor Angus Clarke, Professor SD Noam Cook, Professor Peter Dabrock, Dr Kathryn Ehrich, Dr Roy Gilbar, Dr Beth Greenhough, Dr David Gurwitz, Dr Klaus Hoeyer, Dr Ine van Hoyweghen, Dr Frank J Leavitt, Dr Jeantine Lunshof, Dr Michaela Mayrhofer, Dr Timothy Milewa, Professor Gísli Pálsson, Dr Andrew Papanikitas, Professor Anne Phillips, Dr Andreas Reis, Dr Carmel Shalev, Dr Kadri Simm, Professor Tim Spector, Meike Srowig, Professor Karl Ucakar, Professor Hendrik Wagenaar and Dr Martin Weiß. iii Embargoed until 00:01 Wed 30 November 2011 Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... iii Summary ................................................................................................................................................. ix Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 – Solidarity: genesis of a concept ......................................................... 6 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Early beginnings: classic social theory .............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Solidarity in Christian theory, politics and ethics ............................................................................... 8 1.4 Solidarity in socialist theories and politics ......................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 – Recent developments and approaches ............................................ 12 2.1 Solidarity and communitarianism ..................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Solidarity and rational choice ........................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Contractual solidarity ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.4 Solidarity and gifts ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.5 Reflective solidarity .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.6 Agonistic solidarity ........................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3 – Solidarity in recent bioethical writings ............................................. 20 3.1. Explicit and implicit references to solidarity .................................................................................... 20 3.2 Definitions of solidarity in bioethical writing ..................................................................................... 20 3.3 Solidarity in bioethics: contexts and issues ..................................................................................... 22 3.4 Context 1: Solidarity and public health ethics .................................................................................. 23 The NCoB report on Dementia and the partnership model ............................................................ 23 Public health ethics and solidarity: personalism ............................................................................. 24 Public health ethics and solidarity: stewardship ............................................................................. 25 Public health ethics and solidarity: the relational approach ........................................................... 26 Public health ethics and solidarity: a strong place for (strong) government?................................. 28 3.5 Context 2: Solidarity and healthcare systems ................................................................................. 29 3.6 Context 3: Solidarity and global health ............................................................................................ 30 3.7 Context 4: Solidarity as a European value? .................................................................................... 32 3.8 Criticism of use and application of solidarity ................................................................................... 33 3.9 Main findings and conclusions ......................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 4 – Related terms ...................................................................................... 40 4.1 Responsibility ................................................................................................................................... 40 4.2 Charity ............................................................................................................................................. 41 4.3 Dignity .............................................................................................................................................. 41 4.4 Altruism ............................................................................................................................................ 42 4.5 Reciprocity ....................................................................................................................................... 43 v Embargoed until 00:01 Wed 30 November 2011 4.6 Social capital ..................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • 'Where We Would Extend the Moral
    ‘WHERE WE WOULD EXTEND THE MORAL POWER OF OUR CIVILIZATION’: AMERICAN CULTURAL AND POLITICAL FOREIGN RELATIONS WITH CHINA, 1843-1856 A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Mathew T. Brundage December 2015 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Dissertation written by Mathew T. Brundage B.A., Capital University, 2005 M.A., Kent State University, 2007 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2015 Approved by ________________________________ Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Mary Ann Heiss, Ph.D. ________________________________ Kevin Adams, Ph.D. ________________________________ Gang Zhao, Ph.D. ________________________________ James Tyner, Ph.D. Accepted by ________________________________ Chair, Department of History Kenneth Bindas, Ph.D. ________________________________ Dean, College of Arts and Sciences James L. Blank, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….. iii LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………... iv PREFACE ………………………………………………………………... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….. vii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTERS I. Chapter 1: China as Mystery ……………………………… 30 II. Chapter 2: China as Opportunity ..………………………… 84 III. Chapter 3: China as a Flawed Empire………………………146 IV. Chapter 4: China as a Threat ………………………………. 217 V. Chapter 5: Redefining “Success” in the Sino-American Relationship ……………………………………………….. 274 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….. 317 APPENDIX………………………………………………………………… 323 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Solidarity the Adventures of a Concept Between Fact and Norm
    1 Solidarity The Adventures of a Concept between Fact and Norm F ALL THE CONCEPTS that form the constellation of modern political Othought, surely “solidarity” is a strong candidate for the most chal- lenging. At once influential and undertheorized, the concept of solidarity appears to function across a startling range of discourses. At the core of the difficulties involved in using the concept of solidarity for illuminating contemporary political problems is an ambiguity between normative and descriptive uses of the concept itself. The goal of this introductory chapter is to offer a reconstruction, in part intellectual-historical and in part analytic, of the normative-descriptive ambiguity in our current usage of the concept of solidarity. This ambiguity between fact and norm shouldn’t be taken as an unfortunate outcome of a history of misinterpretations, or as an example of a muddy concept in need of clarification. Rather, we should view the fact-norm ambiguity as a dialectical tension, in the sense that a degree of undecidability between normative and descriptive moments (in Hegel’s sense) of solidarity is itself the core meaning of the term—a tension that can be turned to highly productive use, as the subsequent chapters will attempt. In contemporary political theory solidarity can be invoked as a synonym for community, as the political value against which the freedom of individ- uals must be balanced and without which freedom becomes hollow. In this context, solidarity effectively translates the eighteenth-century republican ideal of “fraternity,” intended as a sibling to the ideal political norms of lib- erty and equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Solidarity: Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics
    Solidarity: reflections on an emerging concept in bioethics Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx This report was commissioned by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCoB) and was jointly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Nuffield Foundation. The award was managed by the Economic and Social Research Council on behalf of the partner organisations, and some additional funding was made available by NCoB. For the duration of six months in 2011, Professor Barbara Prainsack was the NCoB Solidarity Fellow, working closely with fellow author Dr Alena Buyx, Assistant Director of NCoB. Disclaimer The report, whilst funded jointly by the AHRC, the Nuffield Foundation and NCoB, does not necessarily express the views and opinions of these organisations; all views expressed are those of the authors, Professor Barbara Prainsack and Dr Alena Buyx. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is an independent body that examines and reports on ethical issues in biology and medicine. It is funded jointly by the Nuffield Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, and has gained an international reputation for advising policy makers and stimulating debate in bioethics. www.nuffieldbioethics.org The Nuffield Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social wellbeing in the widest sense. It funds research and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science research. www.nuffieldfoundation.org Established in April 2005, the AHRC is a non-Departmental public body. It supports world-class research that furthers our understanding of human culture and creativity. www.ahrc.ac.uk © Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx ISBN: 978-1-904384-25-0 November 2011 Printed in the UK by ESP Colour Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • If Not Left-Libertarianism, Then What?
    COSMOS + TAXIS If Not Left-Libertarianism, then What? A Fourth Way out of the Dilemma Facing Libertarianism LAURENT DOBUZINSKIS Department of Political Science Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.sfu.ca/politics/faculty/full-time/laurent_dobuzinskis.html Bio-Sketch: Laurent Dobuzinskis’ research is focused on the history of economic and political thought, with special emphasis on French political economy, the philosophy of the social sciences, and public policy analysis. Abstract: Can the theories and approaches that fall under the more or less overlapping labels “classical liberalism” or “libertarianism” be saved from themselves? By adhering too dogmatically to their principles, libertarians may have painted themselves into a corner. They have generally failed to generate broad political or even intellectual support. Some of the reasons for this isolation include their reluctance to recognize the multiplicity of ways order emerges in different contexts and, more 31 significantly, their unshakable faith in the virtues of free markets renders them somewhat blind to economic inequalities; their strict construction of property rights and profound distrust of state institutions leave them unable to recommend public policies that could alleviate such problems. The doctrine advanced by “left-libertarians” and market socialists address these substantive weaknesses in ways that are examined in detail in this paper. But I argue that these “third way” movements do not stand any better chance than libertari- + TAXIS COSMOS anism tout court to become a viable and powerful political force. The deeply paradoxical character of their ideas would make it very difficult for any party or leader to gain political traction by building an election platform on them.
    [Show full text]
  • Property As Entrance
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2005 Property as Entrance Eduardo Peñalver Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eduardo Peñalver, "Property as Entrance," 91 Virginia Law Review 1889 (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROPERTY AS ENTRANCE Eduardo M. Pehalver* INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1890 I. PROPERTY AS EXIT .................................................................... 1895 A. Strong and Weak Exit ......................................................... 1895 B. Freedom as the Absence of Coercion ................................ 1896 C. The Individual as Self-Sufficient ........................................ 1898 D. Community as Voluntary .................................................... 1900 E. DoctrinalInfluence of Property as Exit ............................ 1902 1. The Right to Exclude ..................................................... 1902 2. Takings Law .................................................................. 1905 II. Two CRITIQUES OF PROPERTY AS EXIT .................................. 1907 A. The Neo-Realist Critique of Property as Exit ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Justice, Resistance and Solidarity – Race and Policing in England
    Runnymede Perspectives Justice, Resistance and Solidarity Race and Policing in England and Wales Edited by Nadine El-Enany and Eddie Bruce-Jones Disclaimer Runnymede: This publication is part of the Runnymede Perspectives Intelligence for a series, the aim of which is to foment free and exploratory thinking on race, ethnicity and equality. The facts presented Multi-ethnic Britain and views expressed in this publication are, however, those of the individual authors and not necessariliy those of the Runnymede Trust. Runnymede is the UK’s leading independent thinktank ISBN: 978-1-909546-11-0 on race equality and race Published by Runnymede in October 2015, this document is relations. Through high- copyright © Runnymede 2015. Some rights reserved. quality research and thought leadership, we: Open access. Some rights reserved. The Runnymede Trust wants to encourage the circulation of its work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright. • Identify barriers to race The trust has an open access policy which enables anyone equality and good race to access its content online without charge. Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute this work in any relations; format, including translation, without written permission. • Provide evidence to This is subject to the terms of the Creative Commons support action for social Licence Deed: Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales. Its main conditions are: change; • Influence policy at all • You are free to copy, distribute, display and perform levels. the work; • You must give the original author credit; • You may not use this work for commercial purposes; • You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism in the 21St Century Debate Within the Solidarity
    SF SOLIDARITY FEDERATION DEBATE WITHIN THE SOLIDARITY FEDERATION ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY Strategy & Struggle - Debate Within the Solidarity Federation CONTENTS Page 3 .... About Page 4 .... Strategy & Struggle By Brighton Solidarity Federation Page 22 .. Comments on Strategy & Struggle From Tony (Manchester Solidarity Federation) From Tom (Brighton Solidarity Federation) From Neil (North London Solidarity Federation) From Tom (Brighton Solidarity Federation Page 40 .. Anarcho-Syndicalism By Tony (Manchester Solidarity Federation) SF Strategy & Struggle - Debate Within the Solidarity Federation ABOUT In January 2009 Brighton Solidarity Federation produced the pamphlet “Strategy & Struggle” to seek a “clarification of the meaning of anarcho-syndicalism in the 21st century, and as a contribution to the debate over strategy and organisation.” It provoked both discussion within the Solidarity Federation - where the pamphlet represented a minority viewpoint - and in the wider libertarian class struggle milieu, with reports of discussions from the Netherlands to Eastern Europe to the United States. This document comprises of the original pamphlet followed by the discussion between individuals from Manchester, North London & Brighton Solidarity Federation’s. The document ends with a piece written by Tony from Manchester Solidarity Federation on the role of the anarcho-syndicalist union. 3 SF Strategy & Struggle - Debate Within the Solidarity Federation STRATEGY & STRUGGLE Brighton Solidarity Federation This aim will be pursued by way of introducing the Introduction current industrial strategy of the Solidarity Federation (SF), with some historical context as well as theoretical The spirit of anarcho-syndicalism (...) is clarification of the meaning of a ‘revolutionary union’, “ characterised by independence of action around different organisational roles and the relationship a basic set of core principles; centred on freedom between the form and content of class struggle.
    [Show full text]
  • November, 1957 Friendship and Solidarity Among Socialist Countries
    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified November, 1957 Friendship and Solidarity Among Socialist Countries Citation: “Friendship and Solidarity Among Socialist Countries,” November, 1957, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Kim Il Sung Works, Vol. 11, January-December 1957 (Pyongyang, Korea: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1982), 310-322. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117756 Summary: Kim Il Sung's article, originally published in Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, thanks the Soviet Union and China for assisting North Korea while deriding American foreign policy. Credits: This document was made possible with support from the Leon Levy Foundation. Original Language: English Contents: English Transcription Friendship and Solidarity Among Socialist Countries, November 1957 [Source: Kim Il Sung Works, Vol. 11, January-December 1957 (Pyongyang, Korea: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1982), 310-322.] FRIENDSHIP AND SOLIDARITY AMONG SOCIALIST COUNTRIES Article Published in the November 1957 Issue of the Soviet Magazine Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn Forty years have elapsed since the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. In this not-too-long period, fundamental changes have taken place in the history of mankind. We are now living in a new historical era. A major characteristic of this era is that socialism has become a powerful worldwide system. There was only a single socialist state in the world when the Soviet people started building socialism after the victorious October Revolution. The present situation, however, is radically different. The idea of the October Revolution which gripped masses of people has become a great material force capable of transforming human society; socialism now finds itself beyond the bounds of one country, the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Solidarity in Anarchist Thought
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository The Concept of Solidarity in Anarchist Thought by John Nightingale A Doctoral Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy Loughborough University September 2015 © John Nightingale 2015 Abstract This thesis makes an original contribution to knowledge by presenting an analysis of anarchist conceptions of solidarity. Whilst recent academic literature has conceptualised solidarity from a range of perspectives, anarchist interpretations have largely been marginalised or ignored. This neglect is unjustified, for thinkers of the anarchist tradition have often emphasised solidarity as a key principle, and have offered original and instructive accounts of this important but contested political concept. In a global era which has seen the role of the nation state significantly reduced, anarchism, which consists in a fundamental critique and rejection of hierarchical state-like institutions, can provide a rich source of theory on the meaning and significance of solidarity. The work consists in detailed analyses of the concepts of solidarity of four prominent anarchist thinkers: Michael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky. The analytic investigation is led by Michael Freeden’s methodology of ‘ideological morphology’, whereby ideologies are viewed as peculiar configurations of political concepts, which are themselves constituted by sub-conceptual idea- components. Working within this framework, the analysis seeks to ascertain the way in which each thinker attaches particular meanings to the concept of solidarity, and to locate solidarity within their wider ideological system. Subsequently, the thesis offers a representative profile of an ‘anarchist concept’ of solidarity, which is characterised by notions of universal inclusion, collective responsibility and the social production of individuality.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosocialism & Commoning
    Ecosocialism & Commoning: Transdisciplinary Activism in the time of Anthropocene Laksmi A. Savitri FIAN Indonesia The Anthropocene Anthropocene means “New Human.” (Paul Crutzen 2002, Ozone hole, Nobel Prize winner ): a new geological epoch in which humanity has become the main driver of rapid changes in the earth system Deforestation, Digoel Agri oil palm plantation; Jan 2020 Photograph by: PUSAKA Forest fire, AP News, September MIFEE, Zenegi, Medco Corp, 2011 17, 2019 Photograph by: Zuhdi Sang Wawonii nickel mining, China Dialogue, December 12, 2019 Understanding the problem Ecosocialism Industrial Human Nature capitalism (knowledge (natural Human Alienated Nature , relations, system) Labour & values) Nature Labour A metabolic rift process Interdependent process Alienation & reification of social metabolism Loss of metabolic value Growing (unity in difference) (capacity to nurture) transdisciplinary scholarship & e.g.: Agrarian communes, Socio-ecological crises activism hunting band, rotational e.g.: climate change, cultivation, pranata mangsa extinction, loss of nitrogen cycle , global inequality Transdisciplinary scholarship & activism International Ecosocialist Manifesto 2001 The Belem Declaration 2007 “ecological thought and action that The Lima Ecosocialist Declaration 2014 appropriates the fundamental gains of Marxism without productivism”. (Lowy The 2015) “Ecologically conscious Marxism & Greening socialism” (R. Williams) environ- of Marxism 1st stage mentalism ecosocialism Prefigurative Green theorists theory, phase of deep ecosocialism Marx & Capitalism Nature Socialism ecology Modern Journal (James O’Connor) environmental Engels movement Monthly Review (JB Foster) Metabolic Ecological rift Marxism 2nd stage Ecology with deeper ecosocialism rd 3 stage Historical theorists ecosocialism materialism dialectics “a return, and a reconstruction of Marx and Theory of theorists Engels’s materialist dialectic, value & reincorporating the ecological aspects of metabolic their thought, aiming for ecological praxis”.
    [Show full text]
  • Regular Baptists in Maine, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, 1780 to 1815
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fogler Library Spring 5-26-2020 Separating God's Two Kingdoms: Regular Baptists in Maine, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, 1780 to 1815 Ronald S. Baines University of Maine, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd Part of the Canadian History Commons, Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Christianity Commons, History of Christianity Commons, History of Religion Commons, Political History Commons, Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Baines, Ronald S., "Separating God's Two Kingdoms: Regular Baptists in Maine, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, 1780 to 1815" (2020). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3183. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/3183 This Open-Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SEPARATING GOD’S TWO KINGDOMS: REGULAR BAPTISTS IN MAINE, NOVA SCOTIA, AND NEW BRUNSWICK, 1780 TO 1815 By Ronald S. Baines B.S. Westfield State College, 1989 M.A. Reformed Theological Seminary, 2007 A DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in History) The Graduate School The University of Maine May 2020 Advisory Committee: Liam Riordan, Professor of History, Advisor Richard Judd, Professor of History, emeritus Michael Lang, Associate Professor of History James M. Renihan, Professor of Historical Theology, IRBS Theological Seminary Scott See, Professor of History, emeritus SEPARATING GOD’S TWO KINGDOMS: REGULAR BAPTISTS IN MAINE, NOVA SCOTIA, AND NEW BRUNSWICK, 1780 TO 1815 By Ronald S.
    [Show full text]