Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:27:39.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Habermas, Religion, and Citizenship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2013

Patrick Neal
Patrick Neal*
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Patrick Neal, Department of Political Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is the appropriate place for religious argument in the public realm of a liberal-democratic polity? The primary competing positions have been a “liberal” account and a “revisionist” response arguing for a greater role for religious argument in liberal democracy than the liberal position is ordinarily understood to allow. Liberals and their revisionist critics disagree about whether restraints on religious arguments and justifications are justified and desirable. Jürgen Habermas has intervened in this debate with a provocative account of the place of religion in the public sphere. Habermas presents his account as an alternative to both the liberal and the revisionist perspectives, and purports to do justice to the legitimate claims of each without falling prey to the failings of either. This article critically analyzes Habermas's interesting proposal and argues that it does not succeed.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 318 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audi, Robert. 2000. Religious Commitment and Secular Reason. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, Robert, and Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1997. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Point/Counterpoint. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Eberle, Christopher J. 2002. Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel Richard. 2007. Rawls of Routledge philosophers. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, and Cronin, Ciaran. 2010. An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Sam. 2006. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Herzberg, Benjamin. 2010. “Political Liberalism and Religious Liberty: The Conscientious Objection.” Presented at the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Jensen, Mark. 2005. “The Integralist Objection to Political Liberalism.” Social Theory and Practice 31:157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2007. “Religion in the Public Sphere: Remarks on Habermas's Conception of Public Deliberation in Postsecular Societies.” Constellations 14:239–259.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawerence B. 1993. “Constructing an Ideal of Public Reason.” San Diego Law Review 30:729–762.Google Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2012. “Liberalism, Religion and Integrity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90:149–165.Google Scholar