Paper: "Is Public Reason Counterproductive?"
Papers written for "The Religion Clauses in the 21st Century" Symposium are now available. In this blogpost, Eduardo M. Peñalver, Associate Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, introduces his paper, "Is public reason counterproductive?"
As I discuss in my article, the proper role of religion in public life is the subject of a decades-long debate that shows little signs of slowing down. Proponents of excluding religious arguments from discussion of public policy matters have proceeded under the assumption that religious and deep moral disagreement constitutes a threat to social stability that must be tamed. In contrast to this “scary story,” political theory also contains a competing “happy story,” whereby pluralism – the inclusion of religious arguments – affirmatively contributes to political stability by creating incentives for groups to moderate their demands.
Whether the scary story or happy story is a more accurate reflection of our reality is a difficult empirical question, but one that ought to matter a great deal to discussions of public reason. Acting as if the scary story were true when the happy story is in fact operating will lead proponents of public reason to stifle the healthful effects of robust pluralism, degrading the quality of public deliberation and ultimately undermining stability. In other words, if the happy story turns out to be the right one, restricting public reason to exclude religious arguments in order to promote political stability may be counterproductive, hastening the very deliberative and social harms they aim to forestall.
That is, efforts to exclude religious argument through restrictive theories of public reason may well constitute the greater threat to stability over the long run.
Written By:kay sieverding On March 25, 2008 3:43 PM Written By:Peter Shane On March 28, 2008 2:39 PM
Habermasian deliberative democracy does not insist on removing religious arguments, or arguments derived from religious experience, from the public sphere. It does require that people be prepared to give arguments in favor of their contending positions other than, "I have properly intepreted God's command." Has there ever been a stable pluralistic democracy in which divine revelation, without more, was treated as an acceptable basis for the exercise of state power?
I strongly agree that religious arguments are relevant. For one thing they represent the wisdom of the ages. If they followed any established religion, for instance, Former Governor Eliott Spitzer, Colorado Judge Edward Nottingham etc. wouldn't have been in trouble with prostitutes and cheating on their spouses. The Old Testament discusses the duty of judges to be impartial, criminal penalties for false reporting, and treatment of refuges.