Gamwell's Geometry

Abstract

How can people who disagree about what it means to be human being agree about what it means to be citizen? The question Franklin I. Gamwell's The Meaning of Religious Freedom seeks to answer concerns the proper relationship between religious pluralism and modern politics. The question may be put either from religious perspective (How can people who have incompatible religious possibly coexist as members of the same political society?) or from political perspective (In pluralistic society, what constitutional principle can allow people of different religious to live together harmony?). Insofar as the beliefs of different religions involve discrepant comprehensive convictions regarding the meaning of authentic human life, including, therefore, authentic forms of political association, state approval of religious pluralism would seem to be, as Gamwell rightly observes, a prescription for political instability or civil war. (8) The principle of religious freedom-meaning thereby the political principle in accord with which plurality of legitimate religions internal to political community is consistent with its unity (10) -is, therefore, all implications taken into account, the only constitutional principle. (162) What, then, is the proper understanding of religious freedom? Gamwell shows that the question about coherent meaning of religious freedom is, the first instance, philosophical question, and that many attempts to answer it contemporary American political thought reflect philosophical confusion. Of course, if one is to apply Gamwell's argument to concrete case such as an interpretation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, one must also attend to the hermeneutical issue of original intent. But the philosophical precedes the hermeneutical the sense that, if Gamwell's analysis is correct, we are justified saying that whatever the founding fathers meant by religious freedom, if they meant anything coherent, this is what it must be.