Comprehensive Doctrines in the Public Sphere – A Case for Politicization

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2, 289 - 303, 30.09.2019

Tomasz Jarymowıcz

https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.612491

Öz

The
problem with religious reasons is not whether they should be present in the
public sphere but how they should be present. Political theorists such as
Jeremy Waldron, Juergen Habermas, and Christina Lafont have favored two
approaches to making religion legitimate in the public sphere. They have either
tried to work out the conditions under which religious reasons can contribute
to public sphere in a fruitful way or they have drawn attention to the moral
content of religious principles. However, I argue that the latter approach
relies too heavily on the propositional content of religious arguments to the
detriment of investigating how they are politicized in the public sphere. It is
my conviction that without looking at how given religious morality is politicized,
a false moral consensus is manufactured, which given the motivational pull of
religion can be dangerous. Furthermore, the article makes a case for a more
realistic idea of a public sphere where other comprehensive doctrines such as
feminism or economism are taken into account as well. Moreover, the evaluation
of religious reasons should include their relationship to a given background
political culture, which will increase a critical edge of a political theory. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Habermas, Religious Reasons, Public Sphere, Deliberative Democracy

Kaynakça

• ARENDT, H. (1998) The Human Condition. The University of Chicago Press.
• BOETTCHER, James W. (2009) ‘Habermas, religion, and the Ethics of Citizenship’, Philosophy Social Criticism 35 (1-2): 215-238
• CHAMBERS, Simone (2007) ‘How religion speaks to the agnostic: Habermas on the persistent value of religion’, Constellations, 14(2): 210-223.
• COOKE, Maeve, (2011) ‘Translating Truth’, Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (4): 479-491
• EBERLE, Christopher J. (2009), ‘Basic Human Worth and Religious Restraint’, Philosophy and Social Criticism 35 (1-2): 151-181
• HABERMAS, Juergen (2003). The future of human nature. Polity Press.
• HABERMAS, Jurgen, (2006) ‘Religion in the Public Sphere’ , European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1): 1-25
• LAFONT, Christina (2007) ‘Religion in the public sphere: remarks on Habermas's conception of public deliberation in postsecular societies’, Constellations, 14(2), 239-259.
• MARCH, Andrew F. (2013) ‘Rethinking Religious Reasons in Public Justification’, American Political Science Review 107 (3), pp 523-539.
• PETTERSEN, T. (2012) ‘Conceptions of care: Altruism, feminism, and mature care’, Hypatia 27(2): 366-389.
• SCHMIDT, Thomas M. (2007) ‘The Semantic Contents of Religious Beliefs and their Secular Translation’ in Heimbrock H-G, Scholtz C.P. ed. Religion: immediate experience and the mediacy of research: interdisciplinary studies, concepts and methodology of empirical research in religion. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht GmbH and Co.
• SWAINE, L. (2009) ‘Deliberate and free Heteronomy in the public sphere’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35(1-2): 183-213.
• TALISSE, Robert (2012) ‘Religion, respect and Eberle’s Agapic Pacifist’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 38(3): 313-325.
• WALDRON, Jeremy, (2010), ‘Two-Way Translation: The Ethics of Engaging with Religious Contributions in Public Deliberation’, New York University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-84 available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1708113.
• WALHOF, Darren R. (2013) ‘Habermas, same-sex marriage and the problem of religion in public life’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 39(3): 225-242.