The Case for Insincerity
John M. Kang
St. Thomas University School of Law
Studies in Law, Politics and Society, Vol. 29, pp. 143-64, 2003
Much of the philosophical debate between religionists and secularists has focused on whether to permit people to invoke publicly religious arguments to justify their position on laws and policies. Prominent liberals like Robert Audi, Kent Greenawalt and John Rawls argue that in some instances, people should abstain from both invoking religious arguments in the public square and from consulting religious sources alone in arriving at judgment, while religionists like Michael Perry, Nicholas Wolterstorff and Stephen Carter assert that religionists be permitted greater freedom in both areas.
I argue that sincerity is at best irrelevant and at worse harmful in achieving either good consequences or fairness between religionists and secularists.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: Religion, public discourse, philosophy, legal ethics, rhetoricAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: June 15, 2004
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.328 seconds