The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights
- Pamela Beth Harris
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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.
- Baur, M. (2004). On actualizing public reason. Fordham Law Review, 72, 2153–2175.
- Berkowitz, P. (2002). John Rawls and the liberal faith. The Wilson Quarterly, 26(2), 60–69.
- Brown, N., & Lombardi, C. (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(3), 437–460.
- Dahlab v. Switzerland (2001). European court of human rights, case no. 42393/98.
- Dogru v. France (2008). European court of human rights, case no. 27058/05.
- Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. (2011). All things shining. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Dworkin, R. (2004). Rawls and the law. Fordham Law Review, 72, 1387–1405.
- Employment Division v. Smith (1990). United States Supreme Court, 494 U.S. 872.
- Gedicks, F. (2010). Truth and consequences: Mitt Romney, proposition 8 and public reason. Alabama Law Review, 61, 337–371.
- Greene, A. (2004). Constitutional reductionism, Rawls, and the religion clauses. Fordham Law Review, 72, 2089–2103.
- Greenawalt, K. (1994). On public reason. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 69, 669–689.
- Greenawalt, K. (2009). Religion and public reason: secularism, religion, and liberal democracy in the United States. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 2383–2400.
- Hirschl, R. (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(4), 1060–1098. CrossRef
- Hirschl, R. (2008). The judicialization of megapolitics. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 93–118. CrossRef
- Hirschl, R. (2010). Constitutional theocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Kervanci v. France (2008). European Court of human rights, case no. 31645/04.
- Lautsi v. Italy (Lautsi I) (2009). European Court of human rights (Second Chamber), case no. 30814/06.
- Lautsi v. Italy (Lautsi II) (2011). European Court of human rights (Grand Chamber), case no. 30814/06.
- Mancini, S. (2011). Lautsi II: la rivincita della tolleranza preferenzialista. Quaderni costituzionali. http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/site/images/stories/pdf/documenti_forum/giurisprudenza/corte_europea_diritti_uomo/0015_mancini.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2011.
- Mannheimer, R. (2009). Crocifisso nelle aule: l’84% è favorevole. Corriere della Sera, 8 November 2009.
- Michelman, F. (2002). Relative constraint and public reason: what is ‘the Work We Expect of the Law’? Brooklyn Law Review, 67, 963–985.
- Muirhead, R., & Rosenblum, N. (2006). Political liberalism vs. “The Great Game of Politics”: The politics of political liberalism. Perspectives on Politics, 4(1), 99–108. CrossRef
- Nussbaum, M. (2008). Liberty of conscience. New York: Basic Books.
- Penalver, E. (2007). Is public reason counterproductive? West Virginia Law Review, 110, 515–544.
- Perry v. Schwartzeneggar (2010). United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 10-15649.
- Rawls, J. (1999). The idea of public reason revised. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Sahin v. Turkey (2005). European Court of Human Rights, case no. 44774/98.
- Shadid, A., & Kirkpatrick, D. (30 September 2011). Activists in Arab World Vie to Define Islamic State. New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/world/middleeast/arab-debate-pits-islamists-against-themselves.html?hp. Accessed 30 September 2011.
- Smith, S. (2010). The disenchantment of secular discourse. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming as Amici Curiae (2010), Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Perry v. Schwartzeneggar).
- Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Belknap: Cambridge.
- Urbinati, N. (2010). Laïcité in reverse: mono-religious democracies and the issue of religion in the public sphere. Constellations, 17(1), 4–21. CrossRef
- Varnum v. O’Brien (2009) Supreme court of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 862.
- The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights
Volume 40, Issue 2 , pp 271-283
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Public reason
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Political and Social Sciences, John Cabot University, Via della Lungara, 233, 00165, Rome, Italy