Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:02:44.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rawlsian Public Reason and the Theological Framework of Martin Luther King's “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2013

Justin Buckley Dyer  and
Kevin E. Stuart
Justin Buckley Dyer*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia
Kevin E. Stuart*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Justin Bukley Dyer, University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Political Science, 113 Professional Building, Columbia, MO 65211-6030. E-mail: [email protected]
Kevin E. Stuart, University of Texas-Austin, Department of Government, 1 University Station A1800, Austin, TX 78712-0119. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ideal of public reason, made prominent by John Rawls, has become a mainstay of discussions about the proper role of religious arguments in a politically liberal society. In particular, Rawls's theory of public reason requires citizens and public officials to refrain from appealing to comprehensive religious and philosophical doctrines in public deliberation on matters of basic justice and constitutional essentials. In this essay, we review the ways in which the public life of Martin Luther King, Jr. — with its frequent appeals to a comprehensive doctrine to justify disobedience to the law — represents a challenge to the ideal of public reason, and we consider several Rawlsian rejoinders. What is missing from the existing body of scholarship on public reason is a thorough analysis of King's philosophical and theological arguments, including the examples of legal injustice he offered in his celebrated “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” As we note, King's specific examples of unjust laws rely on a theological framework that bedevils the attempt to reconcile his Letter with the constructivist underpinnings of Rawls's theory of public reason. Indeed, Rawls is in something of a bind: either King's argument is not acceptable under the terms of public reason or public reason simply cannot limit contemporary public discourse in the way Rawls has in mind. We consider several possible Rawlsian arguments for the accommodation of King's theological rhetoric, but conclude that the Rawlsian idea of public reason remains deeply problematic.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 145 - 163
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

Aquinas, Thomas. 1914–1938. Summa Theologiae, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: R. & T. Washbourne.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Lewis V. 1984–1985. “Martin Luther King, Jr., the Black Church, and the Black Messianic Vision.” The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 12:93–108.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1843. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Edinburgh: William Tait.Google Scholar
Brightman, Edgar Sheffield. 1920. “Modern Idealism.” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 17:533–550.Google Scholar
Finnis, John. 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. 2007. Rawls. New York, NY: Routeledge.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. ed. 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Garrow, David J. 1986. “The Intellectual Development of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Influences and Commentaries.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 40:5–20Google Scholar
George, Robert P. 2001. The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.Google Scholar
Hittinger, Russell. 2003. The First Grace: Rediscovering the Natural Law in a Post-Christian World. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.Google Scholar
Jackson, Timothy. 2006. “Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968).” In The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, eds. Witte, John Jr., and Alexander, Frank S.. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, Volume 1, 439–464.Google Scholar
King, Martin Luther. 1963a. “I Have a Dream.” In A Testament to Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. Washington, James M.New York, NY: HarperCollins, 217–220.Google Scholar
King, Martin Luther. 1963b. “Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” In A Testament to Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. Washington, James M.New York, NY: HarperCollins, 289–302.Google Scholar
King, Martin Luther. 1960. “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence.” In A Testament to Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. Washington, James M.New York, NY: HarperCollins, 35–40.Google Scholar
Klosko, George. 2000. Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 2003. “Public Reason.” In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. Freeman, Samuel L.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maritain, Jacques. 1943. The Rights of Man and Natural Law. Trans. Anson, Doris C.. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Alasdair. 1989. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2009. A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin and Faith. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.”; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, David A.J. 2003. “Ethical Religion and the Case for Human Rights: The Case of Martin Luther King, Jr.” Fordham Law Review 72:2105–2152.Google Scholar
Richards, David A.J. 1994. “Public Reason and Abolitionist Dissent.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 69:787–842.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J. 1994. “Political Liberalism.” Harvard Law Review 107:1774–1765.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaefer, David Lewis. 2007. Illiberal Justice: John Rawls vs. the American Political Tradition. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Shklar, Judith. 1989. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Rosenblum, Nancy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 21–38.Google Scholar
Steinkraus, Warren E. 1973. “Martin Luther King's Personalism and Non-Violence.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 34:97–103.Google Scholar
Washington, James M. ed. 1991. A Testament to Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Young, Shaun P. 2006. “Rawlsian Reasonableness: A Problematic Assumption?” Canadian Journal of Political Science 39:159–180.Google Scholar
Young, Shaun P. 2001. “Divide and Conquer: Separating the Reasonable from the Unreasonable.” Journal of Social Philosophy 32:53–69.Google Scholar