Beyond the conflict: religion in the public sphere and deliberative democracy
![Thumbnail](/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/23014/35506.pdf.jpg?sequence=4&isAllowed=y)
View/ Open
Impact
![Google Scholar](/xmlui/themes/Mirage2/images/uji/logo_google.png)
![Microsoft Academico](/xmlui/themes/Mirage2/images/uji/logo_microsoft.png)
Metadata
Show full item recordcomunitat-uji-handle:10234/9
comunitat-uji-handle2:10234/8019
comunitat-uji-handle3:10234/8633
comunitat-uji-handle4:
INVESTIGACIONMetadata
Title
Beyond the conflict: religion in the public sphere and deliberative democracyDate
2009Publisher
Springer (Germany)ISSN
1356-4765Bibliographic citation
Special issue on Rules and Exemptions: The politics and difference within liberalism / edited by Maria Paola FerrettiGONZÁLEZ, Elsa; LOZANO, José Felix; PÉREZ, Pedro Jesús. Beyond the conflict: Religion in the public sphere and deliberative democracy. Res Publica, 2009, vol. 15, no 3, p. 251
Type
info:eu-repo/semantics/articleVersion
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionSubject
Abstract
Traditionally, liberals have confined religion to the sphere of the ‘private’ or
‘non-political’. However, recent debates over the use of religious symbols in public
spaces, state financing of faith schools, and tax ... [+]
Traditionally, liberals have confined religion to the sphere of the ‘private’ or
‘non-political’. However, recent debates over the use of religious symbols in public
spaces, state financing of faith schools, and tax relief for religious organisations suggest
that this distinction is not particularly useful in easing the tension between liberal ideas of
equality among citizens and freedom of religion. This article deals with one aspect of this
debate, which concerns whether members of religious communities should receive
exemptions from regulations that place a distinctively heavy burden on them. For
supporters of exemptions, protection for diverse practices and religious beliefs justifies
such a special treatment. For others, this is a form of positive discrimination incompatible
with equal citizenship.
Drawing on Habermas’ understanding of churches as ‘communities of
interpretation’ this article explores possible alternative solutions to both the ‘rule-andexemption’
approach and the ‘neutralist’ approach. Our proposal rests on the idea of
mutual learning between secular and religious perspectives. On this interpretation, what is required is, firstly, generation and maintenance of public spaces in which there could
be discussion and dialogue about particular cases, and, secondly, evaluation of whether
the basic conditions of moral discourse are present in these spaces. Thus deliberation
becomes a touchstone for the building of a shared democratic ethos [-]
Is part of
Res publica : a journal of moral, legal and social philosophy, 2009, v. 15, n. 3Rights
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
"The original publication is available at : www.springerlink.com"
http://www.springer.com/open+access/authors+rights?SGWID=0-176704-12-683201-0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
"The original publication is available at : www.springerlink.com"
http://www.springer.com/open+access/authors+rights?SGWID=0-176704-12-683201-0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
This item appears in the folowing collection(s)
- FIS_Articles [516]