Graduate studies at Western
Philosophia 40 (2):271-283 (2012)
|Abstract||This paper seeks a better understanding of the role of public reason in alimenting or defusing religious conflicts by looking at how courts apply it in deciding cases arising out of them. Recent scholarship and judicial decisions suggest, paradoxically, that courts can be biased towards either the secular or the religious. This risks alienating both religious majorities and religious and secular minorities. Judicial public reason is uniquely equipped to protect minorities, and its costs to religious majorities may be mitigated by accepting religious morality and identity claims in the political and legislative realm. Despite the political fragilities of judicial public reason, it is not intrinsically hostile to religious claims. It ought in fact to be fully equipped to recognize the equality and religious freedom rights that religious groups and individuals might assert in pursuing exemptions from general secular laws. Judicial public reason does have the potential to defuse religious conflicts, however much it falls short in practice.|
|Keywords||Rawls Public reason Religion Courts Constitutionalism Rights|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Roberto Frega (2012). Equal Accessibility to All: Habermas, Pragmatism, and the Place of Religious Beliefs in a Post-Secular Society. Constellations 19 (2):267-287.
Kevin Vallier (2011). Against Public Reason Liberalism's Accessibility Requirement. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3):366-389.
James P. Sterba (1999). Reconciling Public Reason and Religious Values. Social Theory and Practice 25 (1):1-28.
Andrea Baumeister (2011). The Use of “Public Reason” by Religious and Secular Citizens: Limitations of Habermas' Conception of the Role of Religion in the Public Realm. Constellations 18 (2):222-243.
Mathias Thaler (2010). How (Not What) Shall We Think About Human Rights and Religious Arguments: Public Reasoning and Beyond. E-Cadernos CES (9):115–133.
Zachary Hoskins (2009). ''On Highest Authority: Do Religious Reasons Have a Place in Public Policy Debates?''. Social Theory and Practice 35 (3):393-412.
Max L. Stackhouse (1998). The Intellectual Crisis of a Good Idea. Journal of Religious Ethics 26 (2):263 - 268.
Edmund F. Byrne (2010). Why and How Secular Society Should Accommodate Religion: A Philosophical Proposal. Edwin Mellen Press.
David S. Caudill (2013). Boundary Work: Transcendence and Authoriality in Religious and Secular Law. [REVIEW] International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 26 (1):149-161.
Nancy L. Rosenblum (2003). Religious Parties, Religious Political Identity, and the Cold Shoulder of Liberal Democratic Thought. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (1):23-53.
William Stempsey (2011). Religion and Bioethics: Can We Talk? [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (4):339-350.
Added to index2011-12-27
Total downloads13 ( #95,562 of 732,743 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 732,743 )
How can I increase my downloads?