Abstract
In this article I analyze Rawls' and Habermas' accounts of the role of religion in political deliberations in the public sphere. After pointing at some difficulties involved in the unequal distribution of deliberative rights and duties among religious and secular citizens that follow from their proposals, I argue for a way to structure political deliberation in the public sphere that imposes the same deliberative obligations on all democratic citizens, whether religious or secular. These obligations derive from the ideal of mutual accountability that is supposed to guide political deliberation in a deliberative democracy. The main advantage of this proposal is that it recognizes the right of all democratic citizens to adopt their own cognitive stance (whether religious or secular) in political deliberation in the public sphere without giving up on the democratic obligation to provide reasons acceptable to everyone to justify coercive policies with which all citizens must comply.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 127-150 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Philosophy and Social Criticism |
Volume | 35 |
Issue number | 1-2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jan 2009 |
Keywords
- Democratic legitimacy
- Democratic obligations
- John Rawls
- Jurgen Habermas
- Political deliberation
- Public reasons
- Public sphere
- Religious reasons
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy
- Sociology and Political Science