The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights

被引:0
作者
Pamela Beth Harris
机构
[1] John Cabot University,Department of Political and Social Sciences
来源
Philosophia | 2012年 / 40卷
关键词
Rawls; Public reason; Religion; Courts; Constitutionalism; Rights;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper seeks a better understanding of the role of public reason in alimenting or defusing religious conflicts by looking at how courts apply it in deciding cases arising out of them. Recent scholarship and judicial decisions suggest, paradoxically, that courts can be biased towards either the secular or the religious. This risks alienating both religious majorities and religious and secular minorities. Judicial public reason is uniquely equipped to protect minorities, and its costs to religious majorities may be mitigated by accepting religious morality and identity claims in the political and legislative realm. Despite the political fragilities of judicial public reason, it is not intrinsically hostile to religious claims. It ought in fact to be fully equipped to recognize the equality and religious freedom rights that religious groups and individuals might assert in pursuing exemptions from general secular laws. Judicial public reason does have the potential to defuse religious conflicts, however much it falls short in practice.
引用
收藏
页码:271 / 283
页数:12
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
Baur M(2004)On actualizing public reason Fordham Law Review 72 2153-2175
[2]  
Berkowitz P(2002)John Rawls and the liberal faith The Wilson Quarterly 26 60-69
[3]  
Brown N(2006)The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt on islamic law, veiling and civil rights: An annotated translation of Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt Case No. 8 of Judicial Year 17 (May 18, 1996) American University International Law Review 21 437-460
[4]  
Lombardi C(2004)Rawls and the law Fordham Law Review 72 1387-1405
[5]  
Dworkin R(2010)Truth and consequences: Mitt Romney, proposition 8 and public reason Alabama Law Review 61 337-371
[6]  
Gedicks F(2004)Constitutional reductionism, Rawls, and the religion clauses Fordham Law Review 72 2089-2103
[7]  
Greene A(1994)On public reason Chicago-Kent Law Review 69 669-689
[8]  
Greenawalt K(2009)Religion and public reason: secularism, religion, and liberal democracy in the United States Cardozo Law Review 30 2383-2400
[9]  
Greenawalt K(2000)“Negative” Rights vs. “Positive” Entitlements: a comparative study of judicial interpretations of rights in an emerging neo-liberal economic order Human Rights Quarterly 22 1060-1098
[10]  
Hirschl R(2008)The judicialization of megapolitics Annual Review of Political Science 1 93-118