Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:11:22.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Why religion belongs in the private sphere, not the public square

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

By
Denise Meyerson
Edited by
Peter Cane ,
Carolyn Evans  and
Zoe Robinson
Peter Cane
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Carolyn Evans
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Zoe Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access

Summary

The role that it is appropriate for religion to play in politics is a subject of great controversy. In this paper I wish to defend the claim that religion should be regarded as a private matter. I will argue for three principles of political morality: that the government should not act on religious purposes; that it should not assist religious groups to spread their religious beliefs; and that arguments based solely on religious convictions should not be offered as reasons for laws and public policies. The first two principles apply to the relations between church and state, whereas the third principle governs the conduct of individuals. A further difference is that the first two principles are offered as guides to appropriate law in a liberal democracy, whereas the third principle sets out to delineate the moral duties of citizens when contributing to public discourse and it is not suggested in this paper that legal effect should be given to it.

Though the insulation of religion from politics provides a very strong guarantee of religious liberty and toleration, it is nevertheless true that the three principles I propose treat religion less favourably, on the whole, than non-religion. In what follows I will present some reasons for thinking that it is justifiable to subject religion to these disadvantages and I will argue, in addition, that these reasons can and should be found acceptable by both believers and non-believers.

Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context , pp. 44 - 71
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Marshall, W. P., ‘What is the Matter with Equality?: An Assessment of the Equal Treatment of Religion and Nonreligion in First Amendment Jurisrpudence’ (2000) 75 Indiana Law Journal194Google Scholar
Berg, T. C., The State and Religion (St Paul, MN: West Group, 1998), pp. 195–6.Google Scholar
Audi, R., ‘The Separation of Church and State and the Obligations of Citizenship’ (1989) 18 Philosophy and Public Affairs259–60.Google Scholar
Neuhaus's, R. J. book, The Naked Public Square, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984).Google Scholar
Marshall, W. P., ‘The Other Side of Religion’ in Feldman, S. M. (ed.), Law and Religion: A Critical Anthology (New York and London: New York University Press, 2000), p. 102.Google Scholar
Locke, J., ‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’ in Horton, J. and Mendus, S. (eds.), John Locke: ‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’ in Focus (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 17.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 13.Google Scholar
Larmore, C., ‘Political Liberalism’ (1990) 18 Political Theory343–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, M. J., ‘Book Review of Political Liberalism’ (1994) 107 Harvard Law Review1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, M. J., ‘Religious Liberty – Freedom of Conscience or Freedom of Choice?’ (1989) Utah Law Review613.Google Scholar
Owen, J. J., Religion and the Demise of Liberal Rationalism (Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 114.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., ‘The Idea of Public Reason Revisited’ (1997) 64 University of Chicago Law Review767 n. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth, 1977), p. 234.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 354.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia (London: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 92.Google Scholar
Neuhaus's, R. J. phrase in ‘A New Order of Religious Freedom’ in Feldman, (ed.), Law and Religion, p. 95.
Gedicks, F. M., ‘An Unfirm Foundation: The Regrettable Indefensibility of Religious Exemptions’ (1998) 20 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Journal566–8.Google Scholar
Richards, D. A. J., Toleration and the Constitution (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 155.Google Scholar
Cinotti, D. N., ‘The Incoherence of Neutrality: A Case for Eliminating Neutrality from Religion Clause Jurisrprudence’ (2003) 45 Journal of Church and State499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, S. L., The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Basic Books, 1993).Google Scholar
Greene's, A. S. phrase in ‘The Incommensurability of Religion’ in Feldman, (ed.), Law and Religion, p. 229.
Ahdar, R. and Leigh, I., ‘Is Establishment Consistent with Religious Freedom?’ (2004) 49 McGill Law Journal679.Google Scholar
Ahdar, and Leigh, , Religious Freedom in the Liberal State (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramnick, I. and Laurence Moore, R.: ‘The godless Constitution must be understood as part of the American system of voluntary church support that has proved itself a much greater boon to the fortunes of organized religion than the prior systems of church establishment ever were’ (The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State (New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 2005), p. 24).Google Scholar
Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001), p. 92).
Arneson, R. J., ‘Neutrality and Utility’ (1990) 20 Canadian Journal of Philosophy218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B., ‘How Not to Defend Liberal Institutions’ (1990) 20 British Journal of Political Science8–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fish, S., ‘Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State’ (1997) 97 Columbia Law Review2272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 450.Google Scholar
Freeman, S., ‘Political Liberalism and the Possibility of a Just Democratic Constitution’ (1994) 69 Chicago-Kent Law Review626.Google Scholar
Perry, M. J., ‘Liberal Democracy and Religious Morality’, in Feldman, (ed.), Law and Religion, p. 137.
Raz, J., ‘Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence’ (1990) 19 Philosophy and Public Affairs4.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., ‘On Liberty’ in Fawcett, M. G. (ed.), Three Essays: On Liberty, Representative Government, The Subjection of Women (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1912), p. 95.Google Scholar
Smolin, D. M., ‘Regulating Religious and Cultural Conflict in a Postmodern America: A Response to Professor Perry’ (1991) 76 Iowa Law Review1097Google Scholar
McConnell, M. W., ‘“God is Dead and We Have Killed Him!”: Freedom of Religion in the Post-modern Age’ (1993) 163 Brigham Young University Law Review182.Google Scholar
Baker, H., ‘Competing Orthodoxies in the Public Square: Postmodernism's Effect on Church-State Separation’ (2004–5) 20 Journal of Law and Religion119–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×