David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Can religious arguments legitimately be used in public discourse? In recent years, philosophical discussions of this question have focused on the concept of public reason, which is a normative concept in liberal democratic theory, specifying which arguments should and should not be used in public discourse. It is often taken to exclude religious arguments. In this dissertation, I take issue with theories of public reason and the far-reaching degree of self-restraint they expect citizens and office-holders to exercise. My argument aims to show that religious arguments should be given much more space in public discourse than many proponents of public reason are prepared to grant. I argue that even those proponents of public reason who in their theories seek to avoid placing undue demands on religious believers, do impose considerable restrictions on the use of religious arguments. The argument on which such restrictions are based, the argument from coercion, is, I suggest, convincing only in the case of office-holders but not in the case of citizens. I therefore propose to distinguish between citizens and office-holders when considering self-restraint. Citizens should be (morally) free to use religious arguments, whereas office-holders should be expected to exercise self-restraint with respect to religious arguments. Members of Parliament of religious parties should, though, be exempt from this requirement because of their duty to represent religious citizens. Contrary to popular belief, most religious parties do not conflict with principles of liberal democracy, and those that do should be tolerated.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Andrew Williams (2000). The Alleged Incompleteness of Public Reason. Res Publica 6 (2):199-211.
Richard North (2012). Public Reason, Religious Restraint and Respect. Philosophia 40 (2):179-193.
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.
Mathias Thaler (2009). From Public Reason to Reasonable Accommodation: Negotiating the Place of Religion in the Public Sphere. Diacrítica. Revista Do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade de Minho 23 (2):249-270.
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.
Pamela Beth Harris (2012). The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights. [REVIEW] Philosophia 40 (2):271-283.
John H. Chandler (2010). Religious Reasons and Public Policy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (2):137-152.
James P. Sterba (1999). Reconciling Public Reason and Religious Values. Social Theory and Practice 25 (1):1-28.
William Stempsey (2011). Religion and Bioethics: Can We Talk? [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (4):339-350.
Kevin Vallier (2012). Liberalism, Religion And Integrity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):149 - 165.
Added to index2010-07-21
Total downloads17 ( #216,821 of 1,907,098 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #344,362 of 1,907,098 )
How can I increase my downloads?