The papers that follow were presented on April 27, 1996, at a conference entitled “Religious Freedom, Modern Democracy, and the Common Good” and devoted to Franklin I. Gamwell's The Meaning of Religious Freedom: Modern Politics and the Democratic Resolution (Albany: SUNY, 1995). The conference was sponsored by the Lilly Endowment and held at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis.Gamwell's constructive proposal is significant not as a further nuance on settled ways of understanding the relation of religion and politics in the United States, but rather as an explicit attempt to unsettle the current consensus in approaching this issue itself. As Gamwell shows, the contemporary discussion is dominated by so-called separationist and religionist understandings that alike assume, rather than argue, that religion is “nonrational.” He engages positions representing the entire spectrum of such understandings, including the “privatist” view of John Rawls, the “partisan” view of John Courtney Murray, and the “pluralist” view of Kent Greenawalt, in order to demonstrate that such a nonrational approach makes it impossible democratically not only to assert, but also to give coherent meaning to the political principle of religious freedom.