Democracy and secularism: remarks on an ongoing dispute
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2014v13n1p141Abstract
This paper focus on the disputed issue concerning the proper role of religion in politics, confronting the contributions of three major contemporary political thinkers about democracy and secularism. I present, first, Charles Taylor’s characterization of secularist regimes as attempts to secure the basic principles of the modern moral order. Next, I argue that John Rawls’s growing interest in the relation between religion and democracy led him to an even more inclusive view of public reason. Thirdly, I show that Jürgen Habermas preserves a distinction between faith and knowledge that proves essential to grasping the debate over the place of religion in the public sphere. All three thinkers are concerned with the appropriate forum for the basic political language of the secular state. In a nutshell, my interpretation highlights a much greater proximity between Habermas and Rawls on political justification, on the one hand, and between the former and Taylor regarding the normative basis for the secular state, on the other hand, than their various interventions seem to indicate.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and publication rights over their works, without restrictions.
Upon submitting their work, authors grant ethic@ the exclusive right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License. This license allows third parties to remix, adapt, and build upon the published work, provided that proper credit is given to the authorship and to the original publication in this journal.
Authors are also permitted to enter into additional contracts, separately, for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work in this journal (for example: deposit in an institutional repository, make it available on a personal website, publish translations, or include it as a book chapter), provided that authorship and the initial publication in ethic@ are acknowledged.
