An analysis of recent historical trends demonstrates that, while a large part of the twentieth century was dominated by a secular movement away from faith-based governance and societal norms, there exists now in the twenty-first century a developing global movement on the part of a burgeoning, international religious community to again find and clarify a place for faith in the public square. While much of the current international conversation revolves around the more radical elements of this movement, there is a more dominant mainstream, rational desire that is currently being overlooked and ignored, as modern, secular nation-states now grapple to balance freedom of religion and expression with a perceived constitutional and legal mandate to remain secular and neutral. This thesis will provide a study of the Republic of Kosovo as an example of such a conflict between the secular state and religious communities, highlighting its shift towards secularism, observing the religious community in Kosovo advocating for religious freedoms and a presence in the public sphere, and analyzing case law and social theory surrounding recent confrontations between this community and Kosovo's government and legal structure at large. The conclusion of this investigation will establish Kosovo as a local case study with global application, arguing that a misunderstanding of secularism to mean the crowding out of religion from the public sphere is an unsustainable approach for modern governments to take, and prescribing a model for equal representation and civil society that provides religious communities with opportunities to translate their values into more normative societal language with broad application.

Certain laws relating to self-defense were created known as "Stand Your Ground" laws. The public has interpreted these laws in ways that expand them beyond their original scope. To gain an understanding of self-defense laws, a look at the origins of self-defense is needed. Following the historical background, several cases will be examined that illustrate how the public has interpreted "Stand Your Ground" laws, and how these interpretations clash with elements of self-defense. Several philosophical principles including natural rights, the social contract, and some form of utilitarianism, will be discussed in relation to "Stand Your Ground" laws. A possible conclusion can be drawn that by misinterpreting "Stand Your Ground" laws, people compromise the philosophical ideals they hold, and infringe on other people's natural rights, break the social contract, and create societal unhappiness. Finally, some people are calling for reform of "Stand Your Ground" laws. These reforms focus on correcting public perception of "Stand Your Ground" laws.