Philosophia 40 (2):179-193 (2012)

In recent years liberals have had much to say about the kinds of reasons that citizens should offer one another when they engage in public political debates about existing or proposed laws. One of the more notable claims that has been made by a number of prominent liberals is that citizens should not rely on religious reasons alone when persuading one another to support or oppose a given law or policy. Unsurprisingly, this claim is rejected by many religious citizens, including those who are also committed to liberalism. In this paper I revisit that debate and ask whether liberal citizens have a moral obligation not to explain their support for existing or proposed laws on the basis of religious reasons alone. I suggest that for most (ordinary) citizens no such obligation exists and that individuals are entitled to explain their support for a specific law and to persuade others of the merits of that law on the basis of religious reasons alone (though there may be sound prudential reasons for not doing so). My argument is grounded in the claim that in most instances advocating laws on the basis of religious reasons alone is consistent with treating citizens with equal respect. However, I acknowledge an exception to that claim is to be found when using religious reasons to justify a law also implies that the state endorses those reasons. For this reason I argue that there is a moral obligation for some (publicly influential) citizens, and especially those who hold public office, to refrain from explaining their support for existing or proposed laws on the basis of religious reasons. I conclude by suggesting that this understanding of the role of religion in public political discourse and the obligations of liberal citizens is a better reflection of our experience of liberal citizenship than that given in some well-known accounts of liberalism.
Keywords Justification  Liberalism  Public Reason  Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-011-9349-y
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,160
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Political Liberalism.John Rawls - 1993 - Columbia University Press.
Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
Two Kinds of Respect.Stephen Darwall - 1977 - Ethics 88 (1):36-49.
Democracy and Disagreement.Amy Gutmann - 1996 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Public Reason, Non-Public Reasons, and the Accessibility Requirement.Jason Tyndal - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 49 (8):1062-1082.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Religious Reasons and Public Policy.John H. Chandler - 2010 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (2):137-152.
Liberalism, Religion And Integrity.Kevin Vallier - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):149 - 165.
Against Public Reason Liberalism's Accessibility Requirement.Kevin Vallier - 2011 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3):366-389.
Religious Conviction in the Profession of Arms.Christopher J. Eberle & Rick Rubel - 2012 - Journal of Military Ethics 11 (3):171-185.
Sincerity and Reconciliation in Public Reason.Richard M. Buck - 2001 - Social Philosophy Today 17:21-35.
From Public Reason to Reasonable Accommodation: Negotiating the Place of Religion in the Public Sphere.Mathias Thaler - 2009 - Diacrítica. Revista Do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade de Minho 23 (2):249-270.


Added to PP index

Total views
95 ( #121,662 of 2,499,413 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,166 of 2,499,413 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes