Much of the philosophical debate between religionists and secularists has focused on whether to permit people to invoke publicly religious arguments to justify their position on laws and policies. There is a question related to this debate whose answer is often regarded by both liberals and religionists as intuitive and straightfoward: May religionists offer secular justifications in the public square to support or oppose laws and policies without sincerely accepting such reasons as consistent with their respective religion? Some religionists and especially some prominent liberals tend to answer in the negative, disdaining the thought of embracing an alternative that seems duplicitious. I argue that such negative responses tend to neglect the value of insincerity in public justifications.
Kang, J.M. (2003), "THE CASE FOR INSINCERITY", Studies in Law, Politics and Society (Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Vol. 29), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(03)29006-2Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2003, Emerald Group Publishing Limited