A recent book by University of Chicago professor of…
““A recent book by University of Chicago professor of philosophy and law Brian Leiter outlines what I believe will become the theoretical consensus that does away with religious liberty in spirit if not in letter. “There is no principled reason,” he writes, “for legal or constitutional regimes to single out religion for protection.” . . . Evoking the principle of fairness, Leiter argues that everybody’s conscience should be accorded the same legal protections. Thus he proposes to replace religious liberty with a plenary “liberty of conscience.” Leiter’s argument is libertarian. He wants to get the government out of the business of deciding whose conscience is worth protecting. This mentality seems to expand freedom, but that’s an illusion. In practice it will lead to diminished freedom, as is always the case with any thoroughgoing libertarianism.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
Leiter argues that protecting religion uniquely is unjust; all conscience should receive equal legal protection, but this libertarian view may reduce actual freedom.
In simple terms: All conscience should be equally protected, but this may limit freedom.
Key Takeaway
Beware that equal protection can paradoxically restrict liberty.
Themes
freedom
law
religion
conscience
libertarianism
Mood
critical
thoughtful
Type
analytical
philosophical
When to use this quote
- court cases
- policy drafting
- academic debate
- civil rights advocacy
Key Concepts
legal theory
civil rights
philosophy
political theory
Questions to Reflect On
- How would a plenary liberty of conscience affect minority religions?
- Can true neutrality be achieved in law?
A Different Perspective
Equal protection may ignore practical differences in belief impact.