The article, the idea of public reason revisited, by Thomas Rawls focuses on how a liberal democratic society deals with conflicting views. Thomas Rawls was a professor at Harvard University where he researched the ideal way in which a liberal democracy should operate. In this particular lecture, Rawls looks at how religion makes up citizens of societies comprehensive doctrines. Which really means their core values. My objective here is to suggest that even though Thomas Rawls claims that in a liberal democratic society religious parties do not accept legitimacy due to a mere modus vivendi but that in actuality that is the only reason why they accept its legitimacy. I divide my argument into several parts, first is that Thomas Rawls claims …show more content…
However, this point demonstrates that if they do violate legal doctrines it really just amplifies that liberal democracies are still just living in a modus Vivendi. This idea makes sense in the context of Rawls claiming that in a liberal democratic society the position of religious groups should never compete over because all citizens are equal and free. In contrary liberal democratic societies are still living in a modus vivendi and feel the need to act out against laws if they see their position falter. Along these lines, a significant quotation is: " society is divided into separate groups, each of which has its own fundamental interests distinct from and opposed to the interests of the other groups and for which it is prepared to resist or to violate a legitimate democratic law." In this quote, Rawls is trying to prove that in a liberal democratic society religious groups do not need to act in this manner due to the fact that they are equal. However, there is clear evidence that liberal democratic societies have acted this way in the past. For example in the USA when the first catholic president was murder due to the protestant ruling class losing political ground. This idea shows how liberal democratic societies are still living in a modus vivendi, religious groups do not wish to see their position falter, therefore, society has these groups break the legitimate democratic law to ensure their position has not been
“ It remains to be noted that none of the great constitutional rights of conscience, however vital to a free society is absolute in character. Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a long way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to execute the flag salute which is forbidden by religious belief… Similarly freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utteran...
In Nathan O. Hatch’s “The Democratization of American Christianity” he quickly forms his thesis and expands on the argument “both that the theme of
...es by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws. The ‘Religious Right’ is a term used in America to describe right-wing religious (for example: Protestant, Evangelical, and more recently, Christian and Catholic) political factions. While the ‘White Religious Right’ constitutes only 14% of the American population as of 2000, the year of George W. Bush’s first election to the office, this portion of American society believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the American Constitution and that the United States was ‘founded by Christians as a Christian Nation.’ The Religious Right argues that the Establishment Clause bars the federal government from establishing or sponsoring a state church (e.g. the Church of England), but does not prevent the government from acknowledging religion.
As James Madison, the fourth President of the United States said, “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it is right of every man to exercise it as they may dictate” (Haynes, C...
In summary, I have stated the Constitutional basis with respect to the history of church-state relation in America. I have stated clearly the two doctrines of separation of church and state versus using religion to bolster morality and virtue of the republic. And I have argued that the two doctrines have a common ground in conscience and morality.
Imagine that all of the sudden memories of your life and everyone you’ve ever known suddenly disappeared. In this scenario, all knowledge you had of your talents, social status, financial standing, physical ability, intelligence and the other characteristics that you viewed could to definitively set yourself apart from others. In other words, everything that made you who you are through years of socialization all of the sudden vanished. To the John Rawls this scenario is called the original position, one where your consciousness has been placed under a “veil of ignorance”. As a thought experiment, Rawls argues that if individuals of a society discuss and define their system of social justice from the original position, the result of the discussion
In the first chapter of Nathan Hatch’s book, The Democratization of American Christianity, he immediately states his central theme: democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity. In proving the significance of his thesis, he examines five distinct traditions of Christianity that developed in the nineteenth century: the Christian movement, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons and black churches. Despite these groups having diverse structural organization and theological demeanor, they all shared the commonality of the primacy of the individual conscience.
Religion and science became the sticking points between progressives like Bryan, who believed in majority rule, and the ACLU, whose very adherence to science and experts pushed them to favor individual freedom. While science lost the trial to religion, Larson shows how a fundamental shift to modernism produced the rise of individual rights and the decline of majoritarian democracy.
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
These criticisms, however, do not stand up to careful examination, and it is my opinion that John Rawls’ principles are in good standing. Works Cited Brock, Gillian. Phil 103 Freedom, Rights and Justice: Philosophy Department, University of Auckland, 2011. Mill, John S. On Liberty. 4th ed.
Truth, virtue, morality and sin are subjects of much controversy and debate in Western culture and the Church—these topics become more amplified especially within the confines of our political system. As American society ventures further away from the Christian ideals and principles once implemented at the foundations of our nation, these concepts continue to blur and become less important to the collective mind of our nation. Some may argue that these principles should remain separate from government and the political arena, stating that Christian ideals such as these are “antiquated” or “out of touch” with the direction society is heading; however, one ought to argue that government should never be separate from these ideals and it was the
John Rawls and Robert Nozick both provide compelling and thought provoking theories regarding the values of liberty and equality. Rawls focuses on both liberty and equality while Nozick theorizes exclusively on liberty. The ideas of Rawls and Nozick have multiple strengths as well as weaknesses which allow for debate and comparison between the two theories.
Rawls, J. (2007). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. United States: Harvard University Press.
19 April 2014. Heltzel, Peter. The Goodwin. " Radical (Evangelical) Democracy: The Dreams And Nightmares Of Martin Luther King, Jr. And Antonio Negri.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...