It has been about a week since I submitted my final research paper. I have finally settled emotionally about it being done and, at the same time, unfinished. At the end of my research, an exploration of the history, nature, and ideal of religious freedom has transformed into a reevaluation of the rule of law. It had been an extremely difficult step to take because, looking back, I was both emotionally and intellectually unprepared for the questioning of the rule of law. The legitimacy and effectiveness of law in organizing social activities are very naturally assumed. When we face social issues, such as police brutality, systematic racism, the reform that the overwhelming voice calls for is new legislation, better legal articulation, and equal law enforcement. We rely on the principle of the rule of law, believing in its nature of neutrality and universality. When particular law fails, we rush to blame the legislators and to fix the specific statues and clauses deemed failed, and yet, we never dared to question the nature of law, the nature of the law’s functioning, and the assumed structure of morality in a society ruled by law. On the one hand, our imagination of ourselves and of the society surrounding us have been so well defined by law; how do we conceive our relationships to others, how do we conduct our daily life with others without the definition, guidance, and regulation from law? One the other, we are emotionally bound up to the identities given by law and become invested in them; we become passionate about rights and responsibilities, the passion of which in turn reinforce the power of law in further defining as “citizens” and “subjects.” However, through the research, I realize that we, humans, are capable of forming organic interpersonal relationships. We form communities, make moral judgments, and recognize each other just as well in societies not so strictly defined by law, by differences, and by categorical boundaries. Especially in the case of religious freedom, I conclude through my research that an improvement of legal articulation and law enforcement might not be enough or even suitable in preserving what we value, whether it’s called free exercise, governmental neutrality, equality, or recognition because the more articulated, specific law becomes, the more the rule of law gets enforced and believed in, the clearer the boundary between the legal and the illegal, and thus the less the room left for local flexibility and negotiation. Yet, look ahead into reality, how much are we willing to argue against the advancement of the rule of law? Are we still capable of imagining a society without the absolute faith in law, in codified justices, and in, even, the existence of moral truths? When we cheer for religious pluralism, are we ready to also accept a pluralism of morality, a “diversity of diversities”? These are, perhaps, the most fundamental yet difficult questions we are required to consider for a reimagination of a post-secular world.
