Meaning of Religious Freedom

Franklin I. Gamwell is Professor of Religious Ethics at the University of Chicago. He is the author Beyond Preference: Liberal Theories of Independent Associations and The Divine Good: Modern Moral Theory and the Necessity of God, and is co-editor of Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne and Economic Life: Process Interpretations and Critical Responses.

• Preface Part 1. The Modern Political Problematic 1. Introduction2. The Terms of the Problematic Human ActivityReligion and PoliticsThe Present Purpose Part 2. Nonrational Resolutions 3. The Privatist View: John Rawls Religious Freedom and the Political Conception of JusticeThe Privatist View: A Critique 4. The Partisan View: John Courtney Murray Religious Freedom and Articles of PeaceThe Partisan View: A Critique 5. The Pluralist View: Kent Greenawalt Religious Freedom and the Reliance of CitizensThe Pluralist View: A Critique Part 3. The Public View 6. The Enlightenment Rationale: Sidney E. Mead The Essentials of ReligionThe Conflict of Opinions 7. The Rationality of Comprehensive Convictions The Necessity of Comprehensive ConvictionsThe Full DebateThe First Amendment Part 4. The Democratic Resolution 8. Religious Freedom and Democratic Discourse Political Discourse and Democratic DiscoursePolitical Discourse and Democratic ConstitutionPolitical Discourse and Practical Politics 9. Religious Freedom and Democratic Civility Religious Adherence and Democratic DecisionReligious Adherence and the Democratic ConstitutionReligious Adherence and Democratic Civility Epilogue: Religion and Modernity Appendix: On the Comprehensive Order of ReflectionHuman Activity and the Comprehensive QuestionThe Criterion of Comprehensive Reflection Works Cited Index

"It is the most thorough theoretical examination of the subject that is available today. The author takes up the best, most reliable interpretations of the issues with which he is dealing, compares and contrasts them after elucidating them carefully, and provides a conclusion that is careful, sound, and convincing. It is a conclusion that registers most fully within an intellectual context that is informed by the thought of Habermas, Rawls, Rorty, Murray, Greenwalt, and Mead." — Walter H. Capps, University of California, Santa Barbara