Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=556283
 
 

References (51)



 
 

Citations (1)



 


 



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

Abstract:     
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, rhetoric

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: June 15, 2004  

Suggested Citation

Kang, John M., The Case for Insincerity. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, Vol. 29, pp. 143-64, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=556283

Contact Information

John M. Kang (Contact Author)
St. Thomas University School of Law ( email )
16401 NW 37th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33054
United States
305.474.2460 (Phone)
305.623.2397 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/johnkang

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,185
Downloads: 188
Download Rank: 89,690
References:  51
Citations:  1

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.937 seconds