Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics

Rating:
Summary: Liberating Religion from Liberal Restraints
Review: Appearing to spring from a Calvin College seminar on religion in politics organized by retired Yale Noah Porter Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff, Christopher Eberle's "Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics" takes on the major variants of the doctrine of restraint. Eberle's arguments are predicated on the notion that there are citizens who will, at least on occasion, support coercive public policy on the basis of religious reasons alone . . . and that they should not be ethically constrained from doing so.

Eberle deconstructs justificatory liberalism arguments, historical case arguments, and theistic nature-grace arguments for the doctrine of restraint. In their stead, he proposes "conscientious engagement" for citizens -- specifically, religious citizens -- but does not require this of them, ethically or otherwise.

The work is a must-read for anyone engaged in the philosophy of political discourse as it has developed following on Lemon v. Kurtzman and the articulation of the divisiveness doctrine on through Rawls's "Political Liberalism" and his interlocutors.

Rating:
Summary: Liberating Religion from Liberal Restraints
Review: Appearing to spring from a Calvin College seminar on religion in politics organized by retired Yale Noah Porter Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff, Christopher Eberle's "Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics" takes on the major variants of the doctrine of restraint. Eberle's arguments are predicated on the notion that there are citizens who will, at least on occasion, support coercive public policy on the basis of religious reasons alone . . . and that they should not be ethically constrained from doing so.

Eberle deconstructs justificatory liberalism arguments, historical case arguments, and theistic nature-grace arguments for the doctrine of restraint. In their stead, he proposes "conscientious engagement" for citizens -- specifically, religious citizens -- but does not require this of them, ethically or otherwise.

The work is a must-read for anyone engaged in the philosophy of political discourse as it has developed following on Lemon v. Kurtzman and the articulation of the divisiveness doctrine on through Rawls's "Political Liberalism" and his interlocutors.

Rating:
Summary: Taking God and rights seriously
Review: In these times of religious ressurgence, it is time someone offers a valid and balanced alternative to the justificatory-secular-purpose-driven-liberalism that as characterized much of contemporary political and legal theory, constitutional law as well as some U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The "robespierrist" ACLU is another example of liberal secularist fundamentalism. Eberle's book is one such alternative. ACLU's prime agenda seems to be the official establishment of the Cult of Secular Reason, based on naturalist, materialist and rationalist fideistic (hidden) assumptions.

His book proposes de ideal of consciencious engagement as opposed to traditional liberal justificatory and legitimatory arguments, thus suggesting a fairest balance between the theist's dual citizenship imperatives of taking God seriously and taking rights seriously.

This book is particularly interesting since it confronts the most popular liberal justificatory arguments of thinkers such as Larmore, Gaus, Audi, and Rawls, among others, as well other common (Bosnia-type) arguments about the divisive nature of religion. This is an indispensable piece of political theory, and more so today than ever.

Rating:
Summary: The single best book on the subject
Review: This is, in my judgment, the single best book on the subject of the proper role of religion in the politics of a liberal democracy. If that subject interests you, there is no better place to begin than with this book.