Legal scholars and student organizations collaborate to explore constitutional principles, moral agency and global religious liberty
BYU–Hawaii hosted the Divinely Inspired Constitution Seminar on Wednesday, June 17, at the Banyan Dining Hall, where speakers explored delicate intersections of constitutional principles, moral agency and religious liberty under the theme “Building Civic Virtue, Peacebuilding, and Religious Understanding Through Constitutional Principles, Faith, and Law.”
The seminar featured two keynote presentations from distinguished legal figures: Judge Thomas B. Griffith, former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Professor James C. Phillips, a Public Law and Policy Program Fellow at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. The dual lectures allowed students to transition weekend ecclesiastical concepts into a rigorous academic framework, said the organizers.
The event served as an academic extension of a recent global emphasis by Church leadership, the organizers said. On the final Sunday of May, the First Presidency invited congregations across the United States to participate in a synchronized Fifth Sunday lesson on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, moral agency and religious freedom—marking the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary. The seminar also helped prepare for a worldwide fast on July 5, 2026, inviting members to express gratitude for religious liberty and pray for its continued protection.
Dissecting the “great fundamentals”
Professor Phillips based his lecture on a text he described as the “Divinely Inspired Constitution,” combining scriptural passages from the Doctrine and Covenants with constitutional addresses by President Dallin H. Oaks. He focused on the “great fundamentals” outlined by President J. Reuben Clark, examining the Constitution’s divine source, purpose and content of the U.S. Constitution.
Citing Doctrine and Covenants 101, Phillips outlined the theological framework that God “established” the constitutional matrix to secure the rights and protection of “all flesh,” thereby maximizing the environment necessary for human moral agency. Phillips dissected five core inspired principles identified by President Oaks:
The then-revolutionary paradigm establishing that government power originates from the citizenry rather than military dominance or the divine right of kings, manifested via elected representatives within a constitutional democratic republic.
The unprecedented structural division of delegated powers between the national government and its individual state components. Under this framework, the central government possesses only express or implied powers, reserving all remaining authorities to the states or the populace.
The deliberate delegation of distinct executive, legislative and judicial authorities designed to establish robust institutional checks and balances, effectively preventing autocratic overreach.
A vital suite of explicit individual guarantees, most notably the First Amendment's anti-establishment and religious freedom clauses. The provided text emphasized that without these foundational protections, the United States could not have served as the host nation for the nineteenth-century Restoration of the gospel.
The overarching constitutional mandate ensuring a government of laws rather than of individuals, establishing absolute equality before the legal system and directing citizen loyalty to structural principles rather than temporary officeholders.
Peacemaking amid political polarization
Taking the podium, Judge Griffith
turned the discussion toward the challenges of modern ideological factionalism. He asserted that a disciple’s duty extends beyond mere passive politeness, requiring an active, individual effort to be an operative peacemaker. Invoking early American history, Griffith detailed the severe fractiousness of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, noting that the 13 colonies were deeply divided by crushing debt, erratic inflation and entrenched regional prejudices. He reminded the audience that George Washington himself deemed the final consensus “little short of a miracle” given the structural hurdles.
Griffith challenged the audience to look beyond basic civility. “True conflict resolution requires navigating a pluralistic world through compromise and discerning which secondary points can be conceded without eroding core ethical standards,” he said. He cited the historic Great Compromise—which balanced large- and small-state representation by a single-vote margin—as an enduring case study in effective political negotiation.
Drawing on his extensive judicial tenure and his published commentary on constitutional preservation, Griffith issued a direct warning to the student body: “Keep religion out of politics and don’t trade your religion for politics.” He cautioned that treating a constitution as a partisan weapon or a mere political slogan degrades its societal force and obscures its primary function as a mechanism to restrict government overreach and protect human dignity. “A constitution is best preserved when utilized to foster disciplined public discourse and seek structural unity, rather than to shut down debate or test partisan fealty,” Griffith concluded.
Global perspectives from the floor
The academic material resonated distinctly across the diverse, international student cohort. Georgia Jones, a biology sophomore from New York, said Phillips’ discussion helped her reflect on personal divine worth and developmental purpose on Earth. Jones emphasized that robust protections for religious liberty are essential for building personal character and communal strength. She praised Griffith’s warnings regarding partisan politics enables citizens to properly exercise moral agency, advance equity and foster fair opportunities for societal growth.
For Thummim Faye Dollete, a senior biology major from the Philippines, Griffith’s remarks on peacemaking offered practical guidance navigating polarization. She said understanding compromise is essential in a globally connected society. “Religious freedom stands as a principle that transcends mortality, directly honoring the human right to individual conscience,” she noted. By establishing structural spaces for ideological divergence, Dollete observed, constitutional frameworks foster mutual respect, which ultimately drives societal progress.
Annfarie Eustice, a senior political science student from Norway, remarked that the symposium underscored how religious freedom operates alongside the law itself. Eustice argued that the protection allows citizens to shape their personal values beyond shifting societal pressure. Echoing insights from President Oaks’ text, Eustice said, “true constitutionalism dictates that citizens do not need to win every public argument or political battle.” Instead, she concluded, an effective constitutional structure allows diverse cultural and ideological groups to move beyond basic tolerance and coexist.
A cross-disciplinary alliance
Underscoring BYU–Hawaii’s commitment to interdisciplinary learning, the seminar was jointly organized and executed by three prominent campus entities: the Prelaw Society, the Religious Freedom and Human Dignity Initiative, and the Intercultural Peacebuilding Program. Students representing all three organizations collaborated on the planning, hosting and executing the symposium. Faculty organizers noted that the joint venture directly reflects the university’s core mission to fuse faith, scholarship, leadership and community service when confronting complex global issues.