Leading US scholar of constitutional interpretation Michael Paulsen has developed an interesting theory of religious freedom called “The Priority of God.” Paulsen distinguishes, first of all, a liberal conception of religious freedom, according to which it is widely assumed that religious truth exists in a society and the state is tolerant towards various faiths and other traditions. The US, however, has developed in the direction of a modern conception of religious freedom, which no longer recognises religious truth although the state remains tolerant. Moreover, still according to Paulsen, several European countries have adopted a postmodern conception of religious freedom. This conception does not only no longer recognise religious truth, but also implies a considerably less tolerant state, as secularism becomes the established “religion.” This view paradoxically resembles the preliberal stance of religious intolerance out of the conviction that religious truth exists. In response to such developments, the current article makes a case for the classical liberal position with respect to religious freedom. A liberal religious freedom conception forms the best guarantee that societal institutions will be able to fulfil their constitutional functions of a check on the government and as “seedbeds of virtue.”
If parents are not living with their children because of migration, especially in the Asian context, will their children’s image of God be affected? This article aims to highlight the image of God with the stories of four children of Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) parents who have not lived with them since childhood. The article employed the see-judge-act method to understand the experiences of the key informants through personal interviews. Their stories show the struggles and difficulties of these children who live away from their parents, and yet they are able to develop their own image of God. Though these children are highly affected by migration, their experiences are rich potential sources for theological reflection on how they make meaning of their situation. Findings of the article present potential opportunities to develop a theology of migration and further discussions on the implications of Christianity in Asia.
This article examines formal and informal institutional arrangements that either encourage or discourage religious intolerance in response to rapid social and economic change. The initial premise, described in the first part of the article, is based on the work of Gordon Allport, which shows that those who identify themselves as most “religious” tend to be among the most and least tolerant; the former being the “devout” while the latter are “institutional.” The second part of the article examines the economic and social factors underlying the historical relationship, documented by Karen Armstrong, between major social change and the rise of intolerant fundamentalist religious movements. The last section of the article describes three specific ways in which institutional adjustments can reduce intolerance: (1) develop economic policy adjustments to increase household and community resilience; (2) develop institutional arrangements that create incentives for individuals to bargain with one another, rather than engage in zero-sum games; and (3) examine comparative community level studies that offer clues to building resilience and overcoming intolerance.