Rethinking Religious Reasons in Public Justification

This article intervenes in the debate on the place of religious arguments in public reason. I advance the debate not by asking whether something called “religious reasons” ought to be invoked in the justification of coercive laws, but by creating a typology of (a) different kinds and forms of religi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American political science review 2013-08, Vol.107 (3), p.523-539
Main Author: MARCH, ANDREW F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Catholics
Church & state
Citizen participation
Citizenship
Communities
Conferences (Gatherings)
Convictions
Death
Democracy
Ethics
Global justice
Justice
Law
Legitimacy
Liberalism
Liberals
Morality
Political debate
Political Issues
Political life
Political philosophy
Political science
Politics
Presidential elections
Public life
Religion
Religion & politics
Religions
Religious influences
Religious laws
Social justice
Social life
Social Services
Society
Torture
Traditions
Typology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article intervenes in the debate on the place of religious arguments in public reason. I advance the debate not by asking whether something called “religious reasons” ought to be invoked in the justification of coercive laws, but by creating a typology of (a) different kinds and forms of religious arguments and, more importantly, (b) different areas of political and social life which coercive laws regulate or about which human political communities deliberate. Religious arguments are of many different kinds, are offered to others in a variety of ways, and the spheres of life about which communities deliberate pose distinct moral questions. Turning back to the public reason debate, I argue then that political liberals ought to be concerned primarily about the invocation of a certain subset of religious reasons in a certain subset of areas of human activity, but also that inclusivist arguments on behalf of religious contributions to public deliberation fail to justify the use of religious arguments in all areas of public deliberation.
ISSN:0003-0554
1537-5943
DOI:10.1017/S0003055413000269