Eisgruber ’83, West GS ’80, Westerman talk about religious freedom

The Center for Jewish Life sponsored a panel on Tuesday in Guyot Hall examining the question, "What are the limits of religious freedom in a Democratic society?" in honor of the last day of Passover. The panel was moderated by Dean of Religious Life Paul Raushenbush and featured African American studies professor Cornel West GS ’80, Provost Christopher Eisgruber ’83 and William Westerman, a lecturer in the writing program.

The discussion examined the issue of religious freedom and political oppression both for the Israelites of the Passover story and for states with religious tensions in modern times. Each panelist gave a brief speech and then the floor was opened for questions.

Eisgruber spoke first, making a distinction between two different conceptions of religious freedom.

"Sometimes people talk about religious freedom in a way that you can think of as unimpaired flourishing," he said. "The idea of religious freedom in this way of thinking about it says that, to be free religiously, you have to be able to flourish fully, according to what your religion believes, whatever those religious beliefs happen to be."

Eisgruber then noted the possibility of religious beliefs that interfere with the freedom or well-being of other people, such as the refusal of medical care to children, or, as an extreme case, human sacrifice.

"If you believe that this is what religious freedom is about," Eisgruber added, "then you might say that, inherently, something about democratic society means that religious freedom will always have to be limited at some times."

He then outlined the second theory of religious freedom, which he called the "equal regard" conception of religious freedom.

"We take the problem of religious freedom in a democratic society to be a question about how it is that people of different religious views can live together as equals," Eisgruber explained. "We offer a prescription of that in the idea that, when the government acts, it does not prefer or disprefer any person because of the spiritual foundations of their views."

Both West and Westerman allied themselves with this second notion of religious freedom and elaborated on the idea.

"For me, the principle [of religious freedom] is inseparable from a principle of prevention from injurious harm," West said. "I, for example, would wholeheartedly defend the right of the Ku Klux Klan to promote their conception of religion because I am a radical libertarian on this issue. Now, when they get around to lynching me, they've gone too far."

West, however, argued that one can only analyze conflicts of religious freedom on a case-by-case basis and that that matter ultimately eluded any set of general principles.

Students and other attendees noted that the small, intimate setting of the basement room of Guyot provided an excellent environment for dialogue.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"I was sitting a few rows away from the speakers," said Rohan Shroff ’13, who attended the panel. "I really felt involved, even though I didn't ask any questions."

"We hear about this topic so often in the news, but often in such a dumbed-down way, that it was nice to hear some sophisticated arguments for a change," Shroff added. "The speakers challenged some ideas I had about religious freedom, while at the same time making me realize how basic it is."