The Use of “Public Reason” by Religious and Secular Citizens: Limitations of Habermas’ Conception of the Role of Religion in the Public Realm

Abstract

While it is widely accepted that the liberal democratic state should be neutral vis-à-vis religions and that modern constitutional politics should be secular, the concomitant sharp distinction between state and organised religion that has been a long-standing characteristic of liberal political thought has of late been increasingly challenged. Not only are newly re-politicised religious movements in the US questioning the notion that religious concerns can effectively be limited to the private realm, in Europe new religious minorities have made increasingly politicised claims with regard to the accommodation of religious practices and community autonomy. 1 By pointing to the exemptions, privileges, and continued political influence that long-established religions enjoy in most liberal democratic states, these demands have highlighted the extent to which, in practice, the separation of state and religious organisations has been far from complete. These concerns have given rise to often heated debates among political philosophers regarding the proper limits to religious toleration in modern pluralist and multicultural societies. While some critics have expressed the fear that the exclusion of religiously grounded justifications is unduly burdensome for and discriminates against religious believers, 2 others have argued that the "privatisation" of religion has enabled religious communities to escape critical scrutiny. Recent feminist discourses, for example, highlight the prima facie tensions between a commitment to the norm of gender equality and many religious practices and traditions. 3 While these two lines of reasoning need not be mutually exclusive, they pose two distinct challenges to the established liberal demarcation between state and organised religion.In the face of such criticisms, one of the most influential lines of defence of the liberal separation of state and organised religion has centred on attempts to ground the liberal secular state in an independent political ethics. This line of reasoning, most closely associated with the work of Rawls and Habermas, seeks to resolve deep and persistent disagreements regarding worldviews and religious doctrines by an appeal to the idea of public reason, which insists that in the political realm decisions must be justified in terms of reasons that are equally accessible to all.In an attempt to respond to the concerns expressed by critics, Habermas, in his recent reflections on the role of religion in the liberal public realm, develops a subtle and sophisticated account of a liberal secular state grounded in an independent political ethics. While Habermas seeks to defend the traditional liberal separation between state and organised religion, he argues that this form of political secularism must be distinguished from the advocacy of a secularist perspective in society at large. 4 Indeed Habermas' characterisation of modern liberal societies as postsecular reflects not merely the realisation that as a matter of fact "society must anticipate that religious communi...

The Reciprocal Translation Proviso: An Alternative Approach to Public Reason

“…Habermas clearly believes that translation is possible, see the aforementioned examples, and we follow him in this (Habermas 2003, 109; 2003; 2008, 209–47; Habermas and Ratzinger 2006, 45, 228; Habermas and Taylor 2011, 63). Some worry that Habermas fails to acknowledge the difficulty of translating some concepts (Cooke 2006; 2011; Harrington 2007; Lafont 2007; 2009; Ungureanu 2008; Boettcher 2009; Invernizzi-Accetti 2010; Baumeister 2011; Aguirre 2013). However, Habermas concedes an “opaque core” in religion, which postmetaphysical philosophy may never understand (2008, 143).…”

Governmentality and guru-led movements in India

“…Governmentality is essentially power dispersed through the social body (Tiengtrakul, 2007). In late modernity this social body could also be religious and faith-based institutions (Engler, 2003; Carroll, 2009; Mullings, 2011; Baumeister, 2011; Cadge, Levitte and Smilde, 2011; Laborde, 2013; Buckley and Mantilla, 2013). In core governmentality studies, however (some recent examples being Ettlinger (2011), McKinley, Carter and Pezet (2012), Fleming and Spicer (2014)), religious modes of authority and subjectivity have not been tackled as yet.…”

Los alcances cosmopolitas y universales de la propuesta de Habermas sobre el rol de la religión en la esfera pública

“…Para profundizar este tema se pueden consultar, entre otros, los siguientes textos: Cerella (2012), Aguirre (2012 y 2013), Garzón (2012Garzón ( , 2013Garzón ( y 2014, Baumeister (2011), Bernstein (2010, Hoyos et al (2011), Boettcher (2009), Lafont (2007y 2009), Chambers (2007) y Cooke (2006y 2007.…”