http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/02/14/the-rules-of-the-games/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:53:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/02/14/the-rules-of-the-games/#comment-1263 Mark Lilla Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:11:22 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/02/14/the-rules-of-the-games/#comment-1263 I recognize the confusion; let me try to identify the source. There was a word dropped in the web version of the sentence he quotes: it should read "does not depend on OUR accepting or even recognizing the legitimacy of their deepest convictions." Perhaps that helps. My point was pretty simple: I don't have to accept the legitimacy of my neighbor's religious convictions to share a constitution with him. We can share it as a legal document, and at the political level it appears to be accepted as legitimate, too. I recognize the confusion; let me try to identify the source. There was a word dropped in the web version of the sentence he quotes: it should read “does not depend on OUR accepting or even recognizing the legitimacy of their deepest convictions.” Perhaps that helps. My point was pretty simple: I don’t have to accept the legitimacy of my neighbor’s religious convictions to share a constitution with him. We can share it as a legal document, and at the political level it appears to be accepted as legitimate, too.

]]> http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/02/14/the-rules-of-the-games/#comment-1203 Michael Perry Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:19:21 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/02/14/the-rules-of-the-games/#comment-1203 I have been studying, teaching, and writing about American constitutional law for over thirty years, but I am in the dark as to what Mark Lilla means, in his post, by "the legitimacy of the constitution" (which, he says, "does not depend on accepting or even recognizing the legitimacy of their deepest convictions"). Moral legitimacy? Political legitimacy? Something else? (Surely not, of course, legal legitimacy.) So many proper names, so little clarity. Please, can someone enlighten? I have been studying, teaching, and writing about American constitutional law for over thirty years, but I am in the dark as to what Mark Lilla means, in his post, by “the legitimacy of the constitution” (which, he says, “does not depend on accepting or even recognizing the legitimacy of their deepest convictions”). Moral legitimacy? Political legitimacy? Something else? (Surely not, of course, legal legitimacy.) So many proper names, so little clarity. Please, can someone enlighten?

]]>