Political Philosophy: Religion in the Public Sphere by Jurgen Habermas

"Religious traditions and communities of faith have gained a new, hitherto unexpected political importance since the epoch making change of 1989–90. Needless to say, what initially spring to mind are the variants of religious fundamentalism that we face not only in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Southeast Asia, and in the Indian subcontinent. They often lock into national and ethnic conflicts, and today also form the seedbed for the decentralized form of terrorism that operates globally and is directed against the perceived insults and injuries caused by a superior Western civilization. There are other symptoms, too.

"For example, in Iran the protest against a corrupt regime set in place and supported by the West has given rise to a veritable rule of priests that serves other movements as a model to follow. In several Muslim countries, and in Israel as well, religious family law is either an alternative or a substitute for secular civil law. And in Afghanistan (and soon in Iraq), the application of a more or less liberal constitution must be limited by its compatibility with the Sharia. Likewise, religious conflicts are squeezing their way into the international arena. The hopes associated with the political agenda of multiple modernities are fueled by the cultural self-confidence of those world religions that to this very day unmistakably shape the physiognomy of the major civilizations. And on the Western side of the fence, the perception of international relations has changed in light of the fears of a ‘clash of civilizations’—‘the axis of evil’ is merely one prominent example of this. Even Western intellectuals, to date self-critical in this regard, are starting to go on the offensive in their response to the image of Occidentalism that the others have of the West....

"Rawls’s concept of public reason has met with resolute critics. The objections were leveled not at his liberal premises per se, but against an overly narrow, supposedly secularist definition of the political role of religion in the liberal frame. This is not to play down the fact that eventually the dissent also touches the real substance of the liberal state. What interests me (here) is what line gets drawn to claims that reach beyond a liberal constitution. Arguments for a more generously dimensioned political role for religion that are incompatible with the secular nature of the state should not be confused with justifiable objections to a secularist understanding of democracy and the rule of law.

"The principle of separation of church and state demands that the institution of the state operate with strict impartiality vis-a-vis religious communities; parliaments, courts, and the administration must not violate the prescription not to privilege one side at the cost of another. But this principle is to be distinguished from the laicist demand that the state should defer from adopting any political stance which would support or constrain religion per se, even if this affects all religious communities equally. That would amount to an overly narrow interpretation of the separation of state and church.20 At the same time, the rejection of secularism must not succumb to leaving the door wide open for revisions that would undermine the principle itself. The toleration of religious justifications within the legislative process is, as we shall see, a case in point. That said, Rawls’s liberal position has tended to direct his critics’ attention less to the impartiality of state institutions than to the ethics of citizenship."

Download the entire essay (pdf): <http://www.law.nyu.edu/>