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

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511493843.004

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009

Denise Meyerson

Edited by

Peter Cane ,

Carolyn Evans and

Zoe Robinson

Show author details

Peter Cane: Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Carolyn Evans: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Zoe Robinson: Affiliation:
University of Chicago

Book contents

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493843.004 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sandel, M. J., ‘Book Review of Political Liberalism’ (1994) 107 Harvard Law Review1770.CrossRef Google 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. 7CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barry, B., ‘How Not to Defend Liberal Institutions’ (1990) 20 British Journal of Political Science8–10.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fish, S., ‘Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State’ (1997) 97 Columbia Law Review2272.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar