As mentioned earlier Rawls argues that comprehensive
conviction including religion is not important to politics. Unlike Rawls,
Gamwell considers that religion is important to politics. He does not separate
religion from politics but in the same time he also disagrees with idea of the
state establishment of religion. Gamwell’s thoughts on the relation between
religion and politics are exposed in his The Meaning of Religious Freedom,
Modern Politics and The Democratic Resolution in which he makes an effort
to find an answer to the modern political problematic. What he means by the
modern political problematic is the problem of the proper relation between
religion and politics especially if the political community consists of plural
society. To quote Gamwell’s own word, this problematic is as follows: “What, if
any thing, is the proper relation between politics and religion, given that the
political community includes an indeterminate religion?” (Gamwell 1995, 5).
To solve this modern political problematic he proposes “religious
freedom”. What he intends by religious freedom is “nothing than a free
political discourse, that is also, a full political discourse because it
includes adherents of plurality of religions, that is a political discussion
and debate in which differing religious convictions are or can be publicly
assessed”. He calls this solution “the democratic resolution” and believes that
it can be redeemed as an answer to political and religious formulations of the
modern political problematic (Ibid. 10).
All the way through his
democratic resolution, it seems that Gamwell trays to accommodate the interest
of the two groups: the separationist and the religionist. He is in the side of
the separationist when he supports the disestablishment of religion and he also
fortifies the religionist through the endorsement of the full political
discourse of all citizens. Therefore Gamwell declares that the democratic
resolution is “both separationist and religionist in the following senses. All
religions are separated from the state in sense that the state may not
explicitly endorse any answer to comprehensive question. At the same time,
religion is essential to the body politic in the sense that political decisions
should imply the valid comprehensive conviction” (Ibid. 205). The democratic
resolution, Gamwell argues, makes it possible that in one side “[p] olitics is
consistent in principle with a plurality of legitimate religions because they
are united through democratic discourse,” while in another “adherents of all
religions can consistently be democratically civil precisely because all
religions claim to represent the valid understanding of human authenticity as
such.” (Ibid.). The democratic resolution is believed to be the most
appropriate solution for the modern political problematic on the reason that
democratic discourse is the principle of political unity and democratic
civility is the constitutive political virtue consistent with all religious
adherents.
As mentioned earlier Gamswell’s
democratic resolution sets a precondition, namely that only within the
understanding that the religion is accessible to reason, can all the member of
political community be able to participate in free and full discussion. For
these reason, it excludes the non-rational religion (Ibid. 10). In this case
Gamwell understands religion as “the primary form of culture in terms of which
the comprehensive question is explicitly asked and answered, and further, so
answered that human authenticity is derived from the character of reality as
such” (Ibid. 30). In defining religion as such he means that “the distinction
between authentic and inauthentic human activity is identified by relation of
human activity to reality as such or ultimate reality. Religion, then, is the
comprehensive question that ultimate reality is said to authorize human
authenticity” (Ibid. 30).
Meanwhile Gamwell identifies
politics as “the primary form of association in which the question of the state
is explicitly asked and answered” (Ibid.32). On this definition, “the state” is
understood as “the form of governing activities through which all activities
and associations within a given society or community are explicitly unified and
ordered, therefore, is always some or other particular state” (Ibid.). To be
more specific, “the question of the state may be formulated: What should the
activities of the state be or what should the state do?” (Ibid.). In view of
the fact that “the primary purpose of asking and answering this question in
association with others is to determine what the state’s activities will be, a
political association in the sense defined includes its own state” (Ibid.).
Furthermore, “the definition intends to make clear that the body politic is not
necessarily identical with the state, since the former includes all relations
among the governed through which the state’s activities are explicitly
determined”(Ibid.) So, “as a specific
form of activity, then, political activity may be identified as participation
in politics or in body politic” (Ibid.)
The
definition of religion mentioned above shows the scope of the issues, which are
the concern of religion. The same thing is also applied to the definition of
politics; it sets the limit of the subject matter of politics. The definitions
classify which of kind of human activities that can be identified as religious
and which one as political. Meanwhile if religions represent comprehensive
conviction about human life, it raises a question how the conflict among
religion and politics can be in principle civilized and therefore politics can
coherently legitimate a plurality of religion.
On
the understanding that constitution means “the explicit principles, written or
unwritten, in accord with which the state as such, and therefore politics as
such are defined in given political community” (Ibid. 37), the problematic of
relation between religion and politics is a constitutional issue. It means the
constitution should explicitly order the relation between politics and religion
because it cannot be credibly solved as particular political problem, in the sense
that the political constitution is silent which respect to the relation between
politics and religion and the character of that relation is left to the
political process or statutory law.
It
may be possible that the constitution decides religious establishment or
religious freedom. However, the religious establishment is incoherent answer to
the modern political problematic because it is inconsistent with the plurality
of religions. The religious establishment is a religious conviction that the political
constitution identifies as official. If it is the case then religious
establishment means the explicit agreement on particular answer to the
comprehenship question identifies the body politic, and consequently the state
has a duty to ensure the teaching. Therefore religious establishment is
inconsistent with the plurality of legitimate religions because the
non-established religion would be considered as illegitimate.
Since
the modern political problematic cannot be answered by the comprehenship question,
the modern political community must be constituted by the question itself. To
constitute the political community by a question is to constitute a free
discussion and debate regarding the proposed answer. Therefore the modern
political problematic is only solved by the constitution of free political
discourse that is also a full political discourse because it seeks to
understand the character of human authenticity as such or the comprehenship
purpose in relevant to the activities of the state.