Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe right to religious liberty as for instance set out in the European Convention of Human Rights protects acts of religious observance. Such protection can clash with other considerations, including laws aimed at protecting other state interests. Religious freedom therefore requires an account of when the right should lead to exemptions from other laws and when the right can legitimately be limited. Alan Patten has proposed a Fair Opportunity view of the normative logic of religious liberty. But Patten's view faces several problems. The normative work in his view is mainly done by added accounts of reasonable claims and of justifiability. So, the Fair Opportunity view in itself does not provide a normative criterion. Defenses of the Fair Opportunity view must therefore turn on the theoretical preferability of its structural features. But the Fair Opportunity view has the wrong form to capture the right to freedom of religion. The form of the right to freedom of religion is due to how its point is to address how states limit the liberty of citizens. Given a practice dependent approach, which assigns importance to the point and purpose of the right to freedom of religion, Patten's theory is thus problematic.

Equality of opportunity is a popular ideal, both for assessing access to specific goods, such as jobs, education, and health, and as a more general principle of distributive justice. This chapter provides an overview of existing discussions of equality of opportunity in relation to religion. Many of these discussions have proceeded under the heading of multiculturalism, where minority religious practices have often been the focus of debate, for example, in a discussion of religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. The focus is on conceptions of equality of opportunity involved in such debates and on possible ways in which religion might raise issues relevant for the understanding of equality of opportunity as a general principle. Distinctions are made between different ways in which religion and equality of opportunity might relate to one another. Religion and equality of opportunity can be viewed as possible obstacles to each other. The chapter provides examples of this but focuses on other types of relations where considerations concerning the status of religion contribute to the understanding of what equality of opportunity requires as an ideal. Religion is then viewed as a distinct class of opportunities, which people should have equal access to, or as a factor affecting what equal access means, for example, because access to some types of opportunities carries special weight. The most prominent positions regarding these debates are presented and linked to debates about the theoretical status of religion in liberal political philosophy. ; Equality of opportunity is a popular ideal, both for assessing access to specific goods, such as jobs, education, and health, and as a more general principle of distributive justice. This chapter provides an overview of existing discussions of equality of opportunity in relation to religion. Many of these discussions have proceeded under the heading of multiculturalism, where minority religious practices have often been the focus of debate, for example, in a discussion of religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. The focus is on conceptions of equality of opportunity involved in such debates and on possible ways in which religion might raise issues relevant for the understanding of equality of opportunity as a general principle. Distinctions are made between different ways in which religion and equality of opportunity might relate to one another. Religion and equality of opportunity can be viewed as possible obstacles to each other. The chapter provides examples of this but focuses on other types of relations where considerations concerning the status of religion contribute to the understanding of what equality of opportunity requires as an ideal. Religion is then viewed as a distinct class of opportunities, which people should have equal access to, or as a factor affecting what equal access means, for example, because access to some types of opportunities carries special weight. The most prominent positions regarding these debates are presented and linked to debates about the theoretical status of religion in liberal political philosophy.

Civility is an important theoretical category, both for political theory generally and in order to understand and discuss the many issues raised by the Covid-19 crisis, as well exemplified by Matteo Bonotti and Steven Zech's book Recovering Civility during COVID-19. Bonotti and Zech's examples of issues during Covid-19 related to civility as politeness do, however, indicate more general problem relating to civility, which might amount to a paradox of civility. Furthermore, their discussion of justificatory civility indicates that there may be further aspects of relevance than the usual distinctions between public and non-public reasons from the public reason literature.

Many theorists of multiculturalism have proposed contextualism as an approach particularly suited for theorizing multiculturalism. The so-called Bristol School of Multiculturalism (BSM) is characterized by a 'bottom up' and claims-based approach eschewing appeal to abstract political principles. Tariq Modood has articulated this contextualist approach as a version of Michael Oakeshott's idea of politics as 'the pursuit of intimations'. The question is how such an approach fares when applied to the specific political and social context characteristic of, especially European, political reality of the last 10–15 years. Political opposition to multiculturalism at ideological and rhetorical levels has characterized this context. At the legal level, many of the laws and rules in place actually protecting minority groups have furthermore not had the form of group rights or policies of recognition proposed by multiculturalist theories. The question therefore arises whether a contextualist approach that takes its point of departure in the facts of such a context can deliver a justification of a recognizable multiculturalist political theory. This is a version of the general problem of critical distance facing contextualism. Modood's version of the approach appeals to the internal diversity of traditions to answer this problem. However, this leads to additional questions about the nature of the theory and the way in which it is action-guiding. Consideration of these questions qualifies the understanding of in which sense the BSM approach is contextual. ; Many theorists of multiculturalism have proposed contextualism as an approach particularly suited for theorizing multiculturalism. The so-called Bristol School of Multiculturalism (BSM) is characterized by a 'bottom up' and claims-based approach eschewing appeal to abstract political principles. Tariq Modood has articulated this contextualist approach as a version of Michael Oakeshott's idea of politics as 'the pursuit of intimations'. The question is how such an approach fares when applied to the specific political and social context characteristic of, especially European, political reality of the last 10–15 years. Political opposition to multiculturalism at ideological and rhetorical levels has characterized this context. At the legal level, many of the laws and rules in place actually protecting minority groups have furthermore not had the form of group rights or policies of recognition proposed by multiculturalist theories. The question therefore arises whether a contextualist approach that takes its point of departure in the facts of such a context can deliver a justification of a recognizable multiculturalist political theory. This is a version of the general problem of critical distance facing contextualism. Modood's version of the approach appeals to the internal diversity of traditions to answer this problem. However, this leads to additional questions about the nature of the theory and the way in which it is action-guiding. Consideration of these questions qualifies the understanding of in which sense the BSM approach is contextual.

Cécile Laborde's Liberalism's Religion proposes liberal principles to address political controversies over religion. One is the public reason requirement that reasons for state policies should be accessible. Another is the civic inclusiveness requirement according to which symbolic religious establishment is wrong when it communicates that religious identity is a component of civic identity. A third is the claim that liberal states have meta-jurisdictional authority to settle the boundary between what counts as religion and what counts as non-religion. The article considers whether Laborde has managed to articulate these three principles in a way that is operationalisable and can serve to provide solutions to practical controversies over religion. It is argued that Laborde's formulations leave important issues open, and some ways of settling these issues are considered. ; Cécile Laborde's Liberalism's Religion proposes liberal principles to address political controversies over religion. One is the public reason requirement that reasons for state policies should be accessible. Another is the civic inclusiveness requirement according to which symbolic religious establishment is wrong when it communicates that religious identity is a component of civic identity. A third is the claim that liberal states have meta-jurisdictional authority to settle the boundary between what counts as religion and what counts as non-religion. The article considers whether Laborde has managed to articulate these three principles in a way that is operationalisable and can serve to provide solutions to practical controversies over religion. It is argued that Laborde's formulations leave important issues open, and some ways of settling these issues are considered.

Political theory is contextualist when factual claims about context are part of the justification of normative political judgments. There are different kinds of contextualism depending on whether context is relevant for the formulation and justification of political principles (methodological contextualism), whether principles themselves are contextually specific (theoretical contextualism), or whether context is only relevant for the application of principles. An important challenge to contextualism is the problem of critical distance: how can theories ensure a critical perspective if facts about the context to be evaluated are also part of the justification for the normative judgments? Tariq Modood and Simon Thompson have defended what they call iterative contextualism, which combines elements of all three kinds of contextualism in an attempt to avoid the problem of critical distance. The present paper discusses Modood and Thompson's iterative contextualism and whether it manages to avoid the problem of critical distance. ; Political theory is contextualist when factual claims about context are part of the justification of normative political judgments. There are different kinds of contextualism depending on whether context is relevant for the formulation and justification of political principles (methodological contextualism), whether principles themselves are contextually specific (theoretical contextualism), or whether context is only relevant for the application of principles. An important challenge to contextualism is the problem of critical distance: how can theories ensure a critical perspective if facts about the context to be evaluated are also part of the justification for the normative judgments? Tariq Modood and Simon Thompson have defended what they call iterative contextualism, which combines elements of all three kinds of contextualism in an attempt to avoid the problem of critical distance. The present paper discusses Modood and Thompson's iterative contextualism and whether it manages to avoid the problem of critical distance.

Multiculturalism in a European context increasingly has come to denote a concern with religious minorities. Claims for multicultural accommodation of minorities therefore potentially conflict with secularist requirements of separation of politics and religion. Whether there is a conflict depends on the general understandings of multiculturalism and secularism. The paper therefore distinguishes and examines different general understandings. Both multiculturalism and secularism can be understood as sets of policies, or as forms of minority accommodation or views about the relationship between religion and politics defined in relation to liberalism. Both understandings are problematic, so the paper proposes alternative formal understandings of multiculturalism and secularism. Multiculturalism denotes interpretations of what underlying (often liberal) principles imply under new circumstances of diversity. Secularism denotes what such principles imply for the relationship between politics and religion. Such formal understandings provide theoretical frameworks for specifying different conceptions of multiculturalism and secularism and for determining in precisely which respects conflicts might arise. But the frameworks also indicate that conflicts are not general or necessarily fundamental, and they provide tools for reinterpreting conceptions in ways that might avoid apparent conflicts. ; Multiculturalism in a European context increasingly has come to denote a concern with religious minorities. Claims for multicultural accommodation of minorities therefore potentially conflict with secularist requirements of separation of politics and religion. Whether there is a conflict depends on the general understandings of multiculturalism and secularism. The paper therefore distinguishes and examines different general understandings. Both multiculturalism and secularism can be understood as sets of policies, or as forms of minority accommodation or views about the relationship between religion and politics defined in relation to liberalism. Both understandings are problematic, so the paper proposes alternative formal understandings of multiculturalism and secularism. Multiculturalism denotes interpretations of what underlying (often liberal) principles imply under new circumstances of diversity. Secularism denotes what such principles imply for the relationship between politics and religion. Such formal understandings provide theoretical frameworks for specifying different conceptions of multiculturalism and secularism and for determining in precisely which respects conflicts might arise. But the frameworks also indicate that conflicts are not general or necessarily fundamental, and they provide tools for reinterpreting conceptions in ways that might avoid apparent conflicts.

"Contextualism in Normative Political Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

Many political theorists of multiculturalism (e.g. Joseph Carens, Bhikhu Parekh, James Tully) describe their theories as ''contextualist.'' But it is unclear what ''contextualism'' means and what difference it makes for political theory. I use a specific prominent example of a multiculturalist discussion, namely Tariq Modood's argument about ''moderate secularism,'' as a test case and distinguish between different senses of contextualism. I discuss whether the claim that political theory is contextual in each sense is novel and interesting, and whether contextualism is a distinct feature of political theory of multiculturalism. I argue that the forms of contextualism which concern the scope and methodology of political theory are sensible, but not novel or distinctive of multiculturalism. I then discuss the more controversial forms of contextualism, which I call political and theoretical contextualism. Finally, I apply the distinctions to Modood's argument. I argue that it is not a form of theoretical contextualism and that theoretical contextualism would in fact undermine arguments for multiculturalist policies of accommodation. ; Many political theorists of multiculturalism (e.g. Joseph Carens, Bhikhu Parekh, James Tully) describe their theories as "contextualist." But it is unclear what "contextualism" means and what difference it makes for political theory. I use a specific prominent example of a multiculturalist discussion, namely Tariq Modood's argument about "moderate secularism," as a test case and distinguish between different senses of contextualism. I discuss whether the claim that political theory is contextual in each sense is novel and interesting, and whether contextualism is a distinct feature of political theory of multiculturalism. I argue that the forms of contextualism which concern the scope and methodology of political theory are sensible, but not novel or distinctive of multiculturalism. I then discuss the more controversial forms of contextualism, which I call political and theoretical contextualism. Finally, I apply the distinctions to Modood's argument. I argue that it is not a form of theoretical contextualism and that theoretical contextualism would in fact undermine arguments for multiculturalist policies of accommodation.