Comments on: An ideal of conscientious engagement http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/14/an-ideal-of-conscientious-engagement/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:22:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: John Eley http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/14/an-ideal-of-conscientious-engagement/#comment-2615 John Eley Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:32:14 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/14/an-ideal-of-conscientious-engagement/#comment-2615 Professor Eberle has come as close as one can to finding the proper balance between secular and religious reasons as legitimate forces in public deliberations. He places comparable responsibilities on both sides of the aisle, as must anyone who wishes to treat others as free, equal and autonomous citizens who are treated as ends rather than means, when deliberating issues of moral import. This general approach should apply equally well to issues that reach the core foundations of general cooperation in a democratic political system and to issues of justice and fairness relative to the distribution of public goods. It seems to me that this approach goes a long way toward eliminating the temptation and ability of all citizens, either secular or religious, to play a trump card in an effort to end debates and prevail regardless of the other issues on the table. The practice of conscientious engagement would create an active public space in which extended conversations of the sort sought by the late Richard Rorty and others can take place. Such conversations are the sine qua non of the complementary learning process that Habermas seeks. As Professor Eberle argues, this is no less important in the legislative process and in the often intense deliberations that take place with the executive process of the government. Conscientious engagement, if practiced skillfully, should go a long way toward taming both the secular and the religious beasts who would otherwise simply choose sides, stake out extreme positions, resort to hostile speech acts and polarize on all important issues. Professor Eberle has come as close as one can to finding the proper balance between secular and religious reasons as legitimate forces in public deliberations. He places comparable responsibilities on both sides of the aisle, as must anyone who wishes to treat others as free, equal and autonomous citizens who are treated as ends rather than means, when deliberating issues of moral import. This general approach should apply equally well to issues that reach the core foundations of general cooperation in a democratic political system and to issues of justice and fairness relative to the distribution of public goods.

It seems to me that this approach goes a long way toward eliminating the temptation and ability of all citizens, either secular or religious, to play a trump card in an effort to end debates and prevail regardless of the other issues on the table.

The practice of conscientious engagement would create an active public space in which extended conversations of the sort sought by the late Richard Rorty and others can take place. Such conversations are the sine qua non of the complementary learning process that Habermas seeks. As Professor Eberle argues, this is no less important in the legislative process and in the often intense deliberations that take place with the executive process of the government.

Conscientious engagement, if practiced skillfully, should go a long way toward taming both the secular and the religious beasts who would otherwise simply choose sides, stake out extreme positions, resort to hostile speech acts and polarize on all important issues.

]]> By: Daniel Steinmetz http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/14/an-ideal-of-conscientious-engagement/#comment-1607 Daniel Steinmetz Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:07:49 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/14/an-ideal-of-conscientious-engagement/#comment-1607 So what Eberle is basically suggesting is an emphasis on democracy over political liberalism. Therefore, at the state level he is willing to live with the possibility that a significant majority faction is justified in basing their political decisions on nothing more than what they perceive as morally best if this is the only reason they can find. So we must live with the risk or possibility "in principle that citizens and legislators support some law for which they have an exclusively religious rationale even though they fully comply with the ideal of conscientious engagement." I think this is a real possibility, especially in regions of the country where there is no major opposition to a particular group's comprehensive doctrine. This could lead to the passing of same sex marriage legislation in one area of the country and the legalization of teaching ID in another. This is where the culture of democracy that is put forward in the writing of Jeffrey Stout in <em>Democracy and Tradition</em> actually has the paradoxical possibility of creating a polarized culture. So what Eberle is basically suggesting is an emphasis on democracy over political liberalism. Therefore, at the state level he is willing to live with the possibility that a significant majority faction is justified in basing their political decisions on nothing more than what they perceive as morally best if this is the only reason they can find. So we must live with the risk or possibility “in principle that citizens and legislators support some law for which they have an exclusively religious rationale even though they fully comply with the ideal of conscientious engagement.” I think this is a real possibility, especially in regions of the country where there is no major opposition to a particular group’s comprehensive doctrine. This could lead to the passing of same sex marriage legislation in one area of the country and the legalization of teaching ID in another. This is where the culture of democracy that is put forward in the writing of Jeffrey Stout in Democracy and Tradition actually has the paradoxical possibility of creating a polarized culture.

]]>