Defining Freedom of Religion






















5 responses to “Defining Freedom of Religion

  1. Good points well put. It is useful to recognize, too, that the phrase “separation of church and state” is used to label the constitutional principle as well as a widely supported political doctrine, associated with John Rawls as you note, that generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.


    • Thanks for your feedback, Doug. As you probably gathered, I find Wolterstorff’s critique of Rawls to be rather convincing, and Rawls’s and Audi’s implied restrictions on “good taste” in the public square to be too restrictive to be of much practical use when it is consistently applied. I think bringing religion “into play” is entirely a good thing; I don’t think that “ghettofying” religious perspectives does any good for religion or for politics, providing that the four principles of separation I quoted are respected.

      Of course your mileage may vary. (See my previous blog on that. 🙂 )

  2. I belong to a country where society is predominantly religious.Country is officially an Islamic Republic.Here religious beliefs matters a lot.On government level efforts are made to reduce the image of a fundamentalist nation.Particularly government officials try to express secular behavior.They also back all those activities that can create an overall perception of the government as a religiously tolerant government,but inside they have to show their people that how they are promoting are helping in promoting their religion.In U.S the situation is different.there they have to maintain the gesture of a country where all people have religious freedom.and there efforts are done by the government to maintain the posture of a secular nation.and inside home they have to support the majority belief system of its people.In other words country like U.S.A government is forced to do the same kind of stuff as the country like Pakistan is doing.International pressure, is crucial thing.

    • I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Z. I’m hoping to develop my theoretical framework on this matter so that it is relevant to your situation as well. I have to be a little cautious about directly comparing members of the American military to members of the Pakistani military, but I’m sure there are more parallels that many realize. But the cultural battle lines really are in totally different places: In America religious conservatives are trying to prevent homosexuality from being publicly accepted as a viable alternative lifestyle. In Pakistan religious conservatives are trying to prevent girls from getting a basic education. That’s actually a bigger difference than between the Olympics and the Special Olympics! But let’s hope the forces of tolerance run well in both. 🙂

  3. There are some misconceptions in the minds of western thinkers particularly the in the minds of Americans.1-Globalization is a reality.2-there are geographical boundaries between the nations but people of all the nations(except north korea and Iran)have access to all kind of information.3-Access to all kind of information has change the concept of scientific,technological or other kind of superiority and in other educational fields.4-even in military technology some countries have surpassed the americans in many fields(i.e developing more advanced fighter planes).5- economic superiority is also going to be a history for americans. All I am trying to say is that only thing that matters is the access to information.Areas where people dont have such access are not standing at the level where people who have access to the information.Researchers like u are misleading their research if they keep in mind the old concept of geographical boundries.Any event in this linked world affects almost all the people who are linked together.Similarly in Pakistan the areas in which people are directly linked with the people of other parts have same kind problems.Although the response is more localised. Homosexulaity also exists in Pakistan.and in society it has been made acceptable by taking refuge under the cover of eunuchs.And eunuchs have given equal rights according to the recent decision given by the supreme court of pakistan.Now there are some areas in Pakistan that were previously very modern but due to war became under the control of terrorists who are trying to destroy the girl schools annd colleges.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s