The Future of Religious Freedom Must Be Multi-Faith: A Preliminary Reflection

Paul Martens is an associate professor of ethics at Baylor University. This post is based on a presentation given at the ICLRS-sponsored workshop “Religious Freedom, Flourishing Societies, and the Role of Law,” held at Christ Church, University of Oxford, 27–28 July 2026.

As a scholar of religion looking in at the respective legal and political debates around freedom of religion from the outside, I continue to be a little bemused by the way “religion” functions in this discourse. With that as a provocation, I offer the following tentative comments from the perspective of someone who has spent a few decades working in theological and religious ethics. These comments begin with what seem to be pedantic notes about the term religion. With apologies, providing this context is necessary so that I can narrate the story of the relationship between religion and the state in a different key, a key that opens additional perspectives on the conceptual application of teleology.

A Preliminary Word on Religion and Its Relation to Christianity

To state the obvious that is common knowledge: religion is a term with Latin roots that emerged in Western Christianity. That is, its definition is endemic to the story of the West. From its deep ties to monastic life in medieval Europe, its post-Reformation transformation rather arbitrarily became the generic umbrella term for the diverse belief and ritual systems encountered during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of European exploration and colonization. But, as with virtually everything in this era, these various belief and ritual systems were subjected to a less-than-benign analysis and classification under the guise of comparative religion, philosophy of religion, or history of religions. Almost universally (and unsurprisingly), Christianity emerged from these analyses as the superior and final form of religion.

(more…)

Continue ReadingThe Future of Religious Freedom Must Be Multi-Faith: A Preliminary Reflection

The Politics of Metanoia: Conscience, Community, and the Conditions of Human Flourishing

Alexis de La Ferrière is a lecturer of sociology at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Human flourishing depends on the interplay of individuation and communion—on the capacity of persons to develop as individual moral agents while doing so through relationships and shared forms of life. A well-ordered society must therefore protect both the freedom of the person and the associational ecology in which persons are formed, collaborate with others, and pursue shared goods. Religious freedom is particularly important in this respect. It protects not only individual conscience but also the institutions, communities, and collective practices through which persons may encounter and inhabit accounts of the good that are inherited or discovered, independent of the state.

A society concerned with these conditions of flourishing must resist both political indifference and political overreach. It cannot simply leave persons to pursue their preferences within a thin framework of non-interference, because flourishing depends on the social and associational conditions in which persons develop. But neither can public authority determine in advance the form flourishing should take. The ultimate fulfillment of the human person lies beyond politics: it belongs to religion and eschatological hope, however one conceives of these, not to the administrative functions of the state. The state or any other coercive authority cannot manufacture transformative flourishing, and any attempt to do so risks reducing inward transformation to external conformity. The proper task of politics is more limited but no less important: to secure the individual and associational conditions in which persons remain capable of genuine transformation.

(more…)

Continue ReadingThe Politics of Metanoia: Conscience, Community, and the Conditions of Human Flourishing

The State’s Right to Err: Why David Kenny Now Supports Murphy v. Ireland

In Murphy v. Ireland (2003), the European Court of Human Rights decided in favor of the state’s power to prevent a radio station from broadcasting a religious advertisement, based on public order concerns. David Kenny of Trinity College Dublin was initially disappointed that the Strasbourg Court did not find against Ireland. But over time he came to see the decision differently. While he still does not approve of the Irish domestic court decisions that were challenged to the ECtHR, he has reconsidered his opinion on how the ECtHR, as an international court, should deal with cases when religious sensitivities are involved. Kenny explains why he is still skeptical about the “view from Dublin” on Murphy but appreciates “the view from Strasbourg.”

(more…)

Continue ReadingThe State’s Right to Err: Why David Kenny Now Supports Murphy v. Ireland