Comments on Religious Freedom

Abstract

Here, at very beginning of our conference, it may be useful for me to restate summarily some of main themes in The Meaning of Religious Freedom as I understand them. Professor Gamwell begins with what he calls the modern political problematic. Regarded from a religious point of view, problematic is how a religious person (who, in accordance with author's definition of religion as an answer to the comprehensive question, might be a systematic atheist) can logically avoid either denying political relevance of his faith and spurning public debate; or else entering into public debate, but insisting without argument on truth of that faith and in that way seeking, at least implicitly, its official establishment. Regarded from a political point of view, problematic is: how can religious people, with their nonrational faiths, be admitted into political realm-a realm open to all regardless of diverse faiths and therefore necessarily based on rational powers we all have in common-without fatally compromising principled openness of public life? It is a crucial premise of Professor Gamwell's argument that a mere modus vivendi cannot be an adequate answer to this problematic; only a theory of justice will suffice. A second major theme of Professor Gamwell's book is that modern political problematic cannot be resolved if religion is essentially nonrational. This conclusion is reached through exhaustive analyses of some of major efforts of our time to sustain principle of religious freedom while assuming nonrational character of religion-those of John Rawls, John Courtney Murray, and Kent Greenawalt. In every case, it is argued, one of two untenable positions must be taken. Religion may be construed as essentially unconnected with political matters, which is directly contrary to necessarily comprehensive nature of any answer to comprehensive question. If that alternative is rejected, then public realm is perforce opened up to religion-that is, to nonrational faith; but thus scope of reason is abridged and public realm is left without any coherent definition of its public character.