Exploring the nature and limits of religious freedom: A defence of freedom of thought, belief, speech, conscience and association Freedom of thought, belief, speech, conscience and association are vital ingredients in a healthy society. Each of these freedoms is, at least in part, an expression of a broader freedom, namely freedom of religion. In this paper I build a philosophical case for freedom of religion as it incorporates freedom of thought, belief, speech, conscience and association. Man a questioning being (freedom of thought) When is the last time you went out of the city and gazed out at the night sky? This is a quick sure way of reminding yourself of the innumerable mysteries about human life and our place in the universe. How did we get here? What on earth is out there? Star gazing often calls for existential questioning, or what some might even call a religious experience. I sometimes wonder whether this is what religious freedom looks like for many people: those quiet moments when consciously or unconsciously we question things such as the origins of life, our place in the universe, death, our own mortality or that of loved ones, and the possible existence and character of a creator. Such moments might occur in the privacy of our own rooms as we drift off to sleep, when we marvel at the miracle of life, born and unborn, or perhaps when we gaze outwards at the stars. Regardless of when or where these moments occur, they are a very human experiences. I suspect these are the sorts of moments Pope Benedict XVI was referring to when he wrote: Deeply inscribed in our human nature are a yearning for truth and an openness to the transcendent; we are prompted by our nature to pursue questions of the greatest importance to our existence. 1 This is not to say that humans ponder such mysteries all the time. We are, after all, very good at distracting ourselves with the material things around us. Woody Allen has often said that he makes films to distract himself from the thought that we re just temporary people with a very short time in a universe that will eventually be completely gone. And everything that [we] value, whether it s Shakespeare, Beethoven, da Vinci, or whatever, will be gone 2 - thoughts that he understandably finds deeply unsettling. However, no matter how we might distract ourselves, this questioning and openness to the transcendent is something that seems to catch most people s attention eventually, as has been 1 Pope Benedict XVI, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences April 29, 2011 http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-message-to-social-sciences-academy 2 http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/woody-allen-0913
the case throughout the history of humankind. This seems, not unusually, to occur especially when we experience suffering or calamity, or our world is shaken in some way. It is no coincidence that great works which illuminate aspects of human nature and the meaning of life, such as Viktor Frankl s Man s Search For Meaning, are written following periods of immense hardship. Especially then are we truly open to honest questioning and receiving. New natural law theorist Robert P. George from Princeton University, a great defender of religious freedom, goes so far as to say that [t]he existential raising of religious questions is an indispensable feature of the comprehensive flourishing of a human being. 3 In other words, it s one of the many ingredients necessary for a good and fulfilling life. It seems that even contemporary psychologists agree. An ABC documentary series called Making Australia Happy, presented findings about The Science of Happiness suggesting that the act of existential questioning leads to greater happiness. However, even if it is true that religious seeking or yearning for higher things - is a central aspect of our human flourishing, what exactly does this tell us about the right to religious freedom or related freedoms? What it tells us is that it is an activity which is so hard-wired into our make-up as humans and so central to our human dignity as free and rational agents that it deserves special protection. A Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, produced by the Second Vatican Council described religious freedom as freedom from coercion in matters of religious belief and conscience. 4 That is, humans should be free from interference whether from governments, other institutions or persons when it comes to existential questioning. We might like to call this freedom of thought. Man doesn t just ask questions but seeks answers (freedom of belief) However, if freedom of thought is supposed to be an expression of religious freedom, it is a very narrow conception of it. For humans tend not to be satisfied merely with questioning in and of itself. We seek answers too. As G. K. Chesterton said, [t]he object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. 5 Thus, our thoughts have a natural trajectory towards the truth. We ask questions to shape our thinking, to form beliefs and opinions. In other words, our freedom of thought gives rise to freedom of belief. Again, because this is so central to what it means to be human, the activity of forming beliefs requires certain protections, which predominantly means a lack of interference. 3 Robert P. George, Religious Liberty: A Fundamental Human Right in Conscience and its Enemies (2013) p 119. 4 http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/08/23/3832073.htm 5 G.K. Chesterton, Autobiography, Collected Works Vol. 16, p. 212.
Man s search for truth informs our actions (freedom of speech) When we combine freedom of thought and belief we are getting closer to what religious freedom looks like. However, there are still some essential elements missing. After all, what use do our thoughts and beliefs have if we are not free to allow such thoughts and beliefs to inform the way we live? If our thoughts and beliefs are given any respect, then they must be allowed to manifest themselves through what we say (i.e. our freedom of speech), and what we do. Let s think of some practical examples. A Christian might believe that a necessary condition of eternal salvation is baptism. A Buddhist might see their journey to salvation as involving a commitment not to harm any living creature. A Jew might seek to fast, worship, and celebrate the appropriate holidays. These beliefs are ultimately empty unless adherents of these beliefs are able to enact that very thing which they believe is necessary for the attainment of salvation: to be baptised or to keep the commands of the Jewish law. These are overtly religious examples. However, [o]ur religious questioning, understanding, judging, and practicing shape what we do not only in the specifically religious aspects of our lives (prayer, liturgy, fellowship, and so forth) but in every aspect of our lives. 6 After all, religion entails much more than adopting a collection of beliefs about God or gods. It also entails accepting and adhering to beliefs about all reality, including humanity and the proper ends of being human. It is often through speech whether verbal, written, or symbolic - that we come to adopt beliefs of our own in the first place, and having done so, we continue to use speech to test the truth or falsity of our religious claims, and to share our findings with others (i.e. to teach the truth). To deny people the ability to express their beliefs whether through actions or speech - is to deny the fulfillment of what it means to be a free and rational being to be human. Conscience helps to align our actions with our beliefs, and ultimately with the truth (freedom of conscience) What then for conscience? How does this fit in relation to other rights? What aspects of human life does it help to fulfill? Conscience might be described as a mediator between our thoughts, beliefs and actions. It listens to our thoughts, watches our actions, and serves as the inner voice which speaks up when we have acted or are thinking about acting without truth or integrity. It doesn t only speak up when we have acted against our beliefs, but can also affirm when we have acted well i.e. with truth and integrity. John Paul II linked conscience with the objective moral law, stating that conscience serves as a witness to man s own faithfulness to the law, and then makes 6 Robert P. George, Two Concepts of Liberty and Conscience in Conscience and its Enemies (2013) p 113 [Emphasis added].
a [practical] judgment which makes known what man must do or not do, or which assesses an act already performed by him. 7 To deny someone the ability to act in accordance with their rightly formed conscience is to deny their true nature as a free, rational, and moral agent, and therefore to undermine what it means to be a human person. Removing the right to act on conscience is to undo the basis of a free society as it treats the human person as merely an automaton that just follows orders. Manifestation of conscience and religion are not absolute (limitations) While freedom of conscience is central to our human dignity, this doesn t mean we are free to act anyway we like. In the words of Robert P. George, [conscience] is not a writer of permission slips. 8 It does not adopt the attitude of if it feels right, do it. 9 Rather than focusing on our own personal wants and desires, conscience helps us recognise our duties to others. As John Henry Newman famously wrote: Conscience has rights because it has duties. 10 Conscience is, as Newman goes on to say, a stern monitor which directs us away from evil and towards what is good. It directs us away from harming our neighbour and their property, and towards respecting their life, body and property. The right to manifest one s religion or belief is similarly restricted. If it were not, violent or other antisocial acts committed in the name of religion would be justifiable. In determining the appropriate scope and limits of religious freedom and conscience, we must keep in mind that [t]he right to religious freedom is exercised in human society. 11 This means acknowledging that we have duties to treat one another with respect and civility. We also need to recognise the duty of the state to uphold safety, good order, and to ensure public peace. Other than this, human freedoms should be respected as far as possible. 12 Search for truth shaped by community (freedom of association) The picture I have painted so far has been very much an individualistic view of religious freedom. We have looked at how man s nature as a free and rational being gives rise to freedom of thought, belief, speech and conscience, all of which are interconnected. However, humans are not only free and rational, but they are also communal beings. Our communal nature is evidenced from birth, for no one is born in isolation but is always born into a family a basic unit of three: mother, father, and child. Whether we want them to or not, our family starts to shape the way we view the 7 Encyclical Letter of John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, para 59. 8 Robert P George, Two Concepts of Liberty and Conscience in Conscience and its Enemies (2013) p 112. 9 Ibid p 113. 10 Ibid p 111. 11 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatishumanae_en.html, para 7. 12 Ibid.
world. Then, as we grow, our thoughts are shaped by others with whom we come into contact our neighbours, school mates, teachers, our fellow worshippers, whether it be at a church, synagogue, mosque or temple. This is not to mention how we are shaped by the people we see and messages we imbibe on screen. British Philosopher Roger Scruton describes these forms of fellowship as the instruments of our own self-development, without which we would not 'become what we truly are.' 13 If this is true, our journey towards the truth is one that, ultimately, is not travelled alone. Rather, as we journey, we explain to one another the truth [we] have discovered, or thing [we] have discovered, in order to thus assist one another in the quest for truth. 14 Therefore, it is not just our own private, thoughts, beliefs or even manifestation of beliefs that must be protected but also our freedom to associate in community with others. It appears Richard Garnett, Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Notre Dame, would agree. He explains that religious freedom is not simply an effect or implication of private, individual claims to freedom of conscience and immunity from government coercion in matters of religious belief. 15 Such expressions of religious freedom, he suggests, [depend] on, and [are] nourished by, church autonomy. He describes the protection of individual human rights and the right of religious communities self-determination as mutually reinforcing. 16 This suggests that religious freedom, properly understood, involves protection of group rights, as well as individual rights. After all, individuals will not be free to assent to any particular faith unless the faith is itself free to define, develop and transmit its own beliefs and practices. 17 This requires more than mere freedom from government censorship or prohibition to thrive. It also requires the existence of institutions, practices [and other] structures that foster and promote it. 18 Contents of this discussion reflected in International Law Our journey so far has led us to discover that freedom of religion encapsulates freedom of thought, conscience and belief, as well as the freedom to manifest that religion or belief individually or in community with others, and in public or private. We have also explored how these freedoms are broad, subject to limitations that are necessary to protect public safety, order, and the fundamental rights of others. This vision of religious freedom essentially reflects the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the 13 Roger Scruton, Corporate Persons, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 63 (1989), p 255. 14 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatishumanae_en.html, para 3. 15 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10506/ 16 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10506/ 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.
United Nations in 1948. 19 It also reflects the wording of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. 20 Article 18 reads: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one s religion or beliefs may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents, and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. Article 18 communicates the fact that freedom of religion is not just about respecting an individual s right to hold private beliefs behind closed doors, but also to live out those beliefs in the public square. It also recognises that religious freedom extends beyond the individual and involves the protection of religious communities i.e. the right for believers to congregate in order to live out their shared beliefs together. This communal aspect of religious freedom is commonly misunderstood due to the influences of individualism in our western culture. However, it is inherently connected with freedom of association and the rights of cultural and religious minorities. 21 Article 18(3) also provides helpful guidance on what constitutes an appropriate limitation on freedom of religion. Freedom of religion can only be limited in very restricted circumstances, namely where its expression threatens public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Any limitation on religious freedom must be strictly necessary, and therefore justified only in very serious cases. The question that follows, and that inevitably results in disagreement, is exactly what limitations are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others? 19 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 20 http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx 21 See Article 22 and 27 of the ICCPR.
Conclusion Many of us are fooled into thinking that religious freedom means nothing more than those quiet moments of existential questioning. However, as we have seen, our thoughts give rise to our beliefs, as our beliefs give rise to our actions. Thus, to respect who we are as moral beings means enabling us to live in accordance with these beliefs, not merely in the privacy of our own homes but also while journeying with others, in public and in private. We should strive to articulate and defend an account of religious freedom that incorporates all of these elements, and does not draw a sharp dividing line between beliefs and practices, nor private and public activities. To accept such a watered down vision of religious freedom is to deny what it means to be human. Chelsea Pietsch