When God Commands Disobedience: Political Liberalism and Unreasonable Religions

Clayton, Matthew; Stevens, David

doi:10.1007/s11158-013-9221-y

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What about efforts by citizens and nongovernmental associations? Clayton and Stevens, focusing on unreasonable religious doctrines, suggest that reasonable religious citizens might be morally required to try to persuade fellow believers to adopt more reasonable versions of their religious doctrines (2014: 82). More recently, Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti have suggested that the citizens of a liberal society have a ‘duty of pressure’ which requires ‘that ordinary reasonable citizens press the unreasonable they know (e.g.…”

Section: Stability and Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fact of Unreasonable Pluralism

Ancell¹

2019

J. of the Am. Philos. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of political liberalism standardly assume that the citizens of an ideal liberal society would be overwhelmingly reasonable. I argue that this assumption violates political liberalism's own constraints of realism—constraints that are necessary to frame the central problem that political liberalism aims to solve, that is, the problem of reasonable pluralism. To be consistent with these constraints, political liberalism must recognize that, as with reasonable pluralism, widespread support for unreasonable moral and political views is an inevitable feature of any liberal society. I call this the fact of unreasonable pluralism. This fact threatens Rawlsian political liberalism's account of stability because an overlapping consensus cannot stably order a society pervaded by unreasonable views. My argument also raises questions about the coherence of Rawls's conception of ideal theory.

show abstract

Section: Stability and Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fact of Unreasonable Pluralism

Ancell¹

2019

J. of the Am. Philos. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in contrast to a different kind of pluralism, where some people unreasonably reject one or more of these commitments (that their fellow citizens are also free and equal, or that society should be a fair system of mutual cooperation); what Rawls calls 'the fact of pluralism as such' or we might call brute pluralism (Rawls 1996, 63-66;emphasis added. See also Quong 2011, 291;Callan 1997, 23-24;Clayton and Stevens 2014).…”

Section: The Acceptability Requirementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Is it not the case that some reasonable citizens, those who align themselves to a life of faithful obedience to a sacred text for example, reject English Literature as a compulsory subject, because from their point of view it wrongly develops children's imaginative and interpretative capacities; or Science lessons in which Darwinian evolution, rather than creationism or intelligent design, is taught as the best existing account of natural history? However, that conclusion is unwarranted, because these features of the curriculum might be justified in virtue of our interest in becoming reasonable citizens (Clayton 2014).…”

Section: The Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

What is the point of religious education?

Clayton

Stevens

2018

Theory and Research in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some liberal societies continue to require their schools to offer non-directive, but specifically religious education as part of the curriculum. This paper challenges that practice. It does so by articulating and defending a moral principle, which asserts that education policy must be regulated by principles that are acceptable to reasonable people. Thereafter, we argue that the leading arguments for prioritizing the study of religion in schools-arguments that claim that religion is special or that assert that the majority or parents are morally permitted to prioritise religion in schooling-are incompatible with the acceptability requirement.

show abstract

“…Because certain conceptions of society are irrational and unreasonable, one should not spend time or energy in arguing against them (ibid., 323, 328). Clayton and Stevens (2014) assert that Rawls's position should not be construed to state that political liberals should say absolutely nothing to the unreasonable by way of justification for their dismissal. The key point is that no additional or extra justification should be given apart from the justifications 'for political obligations that are given in terms of political values which all reasonable citizens can in principle accept' (Clayton and Stevens, 2014, 73;also Quong, 2011, 312-4).…”

Section: §1 Background For Justifying Containment In Political Liberamentioning

confidence: 99%

10. Political liberalism and the preventive containment of unreasonable beliefs and behavior

Pennanen

2015

Stud. Soc. Pol. Tho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the ways in which illiberal and unreasonable views can be legitimately contained in a politically liberal society, and discusses some of the pressing reasons to undertake, or abstain from, such measures. Theoretical background for the discussion is provided by Rawlsian political liberalism. The paper focuses on the particular justification for the preventive containment of unreasonable views offered by Jonathan Quong (2011). It is claimed that Quong’s approach raises some significant worries (not unrelated to the ‘third-order pathologies’ discussed above in Chapter 2). The suggestion is put forward that political liberals would do well to pay more attention to respect and relations of recognition.

show abstract

When God Commands Disobedience: Political Liberalism and Unreasonable Religions

Cited by 36 publications

References 16 publications

The Fact of Unreasonable Pluralism

The Fact of Unreasonable Pluralism

What is the point of religious education?

10. Political liberalism and the preventive containment of unreasonable beliefs and behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About