It prompted me to read a review of a recent book on religious liberty by Brian Leiter. The reviewer panned Leiter's book, but most of his review would only appeal to a specialist in Con Law or philosophy. One section, though, caught my eye.
Contrary to many popular conceptions today, religious liberty isn’t founded on indifferentism, or relativism, or subjectivism, or skepticism: That there’s no meaningful truth at stake in religion, or that if there is we simply can’t know it. Nor should religious liberty be understood as a right to self-authenticity, where the right of religious liberty is conflated with the right of conscience understood as being true to one’s self (especially where one’s “self” is equated with one’s desires).
No, with [Cardinal John Henry] Newman we should see conscience as a “stern monitor.” It is the faculty of rational moral judgment by which we are capable of distinguishing right and wrong and conforming our conduct to truths about what must and must not be done. This makes sense of Newman’s claim that “conscience has rights because it has duties,” for it has duties to pursue and to adhere to truth. Indeed, conscience has particular duties with respect to the most important truths in life, truths about God. Thus a sound understanding of religious liberty is that religious truth exists, and that we have a moral duty to seek it out and to live our lives accordingly.
Politically, this pursuit and adherence best takes place if it is in no way coerced; indeed religious acts have actual moral merit, actual moral worth, only if freely chosen. God, as understood in the traditions of ethical monotheism, does not desire forced worship; in fact, an act simply could not qualify as an act of worship if it were coerced. Likewise, when conflicting with religious pursuits, even generally applicable laws should take religious goods into account. This helps explain why we have our First Amendment, and why Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that any law impinging negatively on religious freedom do so only for compelling reasons and in the least restrictive way possible.
He's making a "positive liberty" claim here. A "negative liberty" claim would be to say that since another's beliefs do not themselves hurt me, they should be free to believe whatever they want. The reviewer is asserting something different. Distilling his paragraphs down to a bare minimum gives us this:
Humans are teleologically bound to seek some kind of transcendent Truth. Because that compulsion is uniquely and universally human, we must be maximally free to do so.
Two questions:
a) He doesn't offer evidence for his assertion: can you think of any for or against? Is he right?
b) Presumably humans are also teleologically bound (alternatively, genetically conditioned) to reproduce, so even if he is right, doesn't that still keep religious liberty on the same level as reproductive liberty?
Here we get to the meat of things. I feel that yes, we are naturally inclined, conditioned, etc. to seek some sort of truth in this vast, big world that we live in. Depending on your upbringing, you can find that in a variety of ways. Someone like me would have trouble having a conversation with anyone with the presupposition that “there is no God.” And thus a conversation with an atheist would be very difficult to have. Likewise someone who grew up a devout atheist would likely not find it easy to have a conversation with a dedicated Islamist. Our upbringing and events that surround it have a great deal of influence in how we make sense out of this chaotic world. However I believe it to be a staple of our humanity that we seek some sort of higher truth. Christianity finds it in the teachings of Christ, Hebrews find it in the direction of Yahweh, Islamists find their direction from Muhammad in reaching Allah, and so on and so on. Atheists too seek a higher understanding. The argument has been made that Atheism is not the absence of a god, but rather that god is within the individual. The evidence can be found in the overall furthering of human civilization. Why else would we invest in scientific endeavors, sponsor the arts, fill lecture halls when philosophers guest speak at universities. Why even have universities if the objective was not to obtain some “higher truth?” Regardless of what your religious or spiritual cup of tea is, no one can argue that there isn’t an initiate desire within every individual to seek some higher truth or meaning. How we define “higher truth or meaning” is, and always will be, up for debate, but no one can deny that it is there.
ReplyDeleteIf by “…doesn't that still keep religious liberty on the same level as reproductive liberty?” you mean should religious decisions be made at an individual level, than yes. I believe it is the government’s role to ensure that this liberty to exercise your freedom of religious affiliation isn’t infringed or abused, but overall the option should be there to exercise your religious preference however you please, in so much as it does not prevent, or otherwise harm another individual from doing so as well.
I do believe it's true that we have the innate desire to understand life. It's purpose, and more specifically OUR purpose. This often leads us to a place outside of ourselves - how do we as an individual fit into eternity? What is this life, and what happens when it ends? This often calls us to seek a higher truth, something that is real truth, something that we can stand on and build ourselves up on. Religious freedom is very important, then, because "forced belief" is really no belief at all. Ultimately, no matter your experiences, to really believe in something we must eventually ask ourselves deep, real questions and dig for the answers. I believe this applies no matter what our circumstances are - whether you were raised in a devoutly religious home or a very secular one - belief is not hereditary. True belief comes from the freedom to explore and ask yourself the scary, hard questions of life. True belief is weighing what others claim to be "truth" against logic, reason, and the world we live in and seeing what holds up. This cannot be conducted without maximal freedom to do just that.
ReplyDeleteI think religious liberty and reproductive liberty should be on the same level. For people who believe as such, it is on the same level along with the other freedoms and liberties we are granted as a nation. However, the people who do not believe in religious liberty or that there is only one religion to believe, reproductive liberty is therefore not given. But no matter how theologically or genetically bound people are there will always be someone else saying that it is not true or giving other theories to explain things away.
ReplyDelete