This article addresses the debate over religion in the public sphere by analysing the conception of ‘religion’ in the recent work of Habermas, who claims to mediate the divide between those who defend public appeals to religion without restriction and those who place limits on such appeals. I argue that Habermas’ translation requirement and his restriction on religious reasons in the institutional public sphere rest on a conception of religion as essentially apolitical in its origin. This conception, I argue, remains embedded in a standard secularization framework, despite Habermas’ claim to offer a new account of secularization. This approach betrays the complex reality of the political constitution of religion and the religious constitution of politics, as demonstrated by the current debate about marriage rights in the USA. In mischaracterizing the inherently public and political dimensions of religion, Habermas undermines the effectiveness of his normative framework.
AsadTalal (1993) Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
AsadTalal (2003) Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
AsadTalal (2006) ‘French Secularism and the “Islamic Veil Affair”’, The Hedgehog Review8(1–2): 93–106.
4.
AudiRobertWolterstorffNicholas (1997) Religion in the Public Square. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
BenedictXVI (2009) ‘Encyclical Letter: Caritas in Veritate’ [Love in Truth]. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
6.
BergerPeter L., ed. (1999) The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center.
7.
BruceSteve (2002) God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
CasanovaJosé (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
ChakrabartyDipesh (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
ChambersSimone (2007) ‘How Religion speaks to the Agnostic: Habermas on the Persistent Value of Religion’, Constellations14(2): 210–23.
11.
CookeMaeve (2007) ‘A Secular State for a Postsecular Society? Postmetaphysical Political Theory and the Place of Religion’, Constellations14(2): 224–38.
12.
DryzekJohn S. (2002) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
ElsterJon, ed. (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FitzgeraldTimothy (2000) The Ideology of Religious Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
FitzgeraldTimothy (2007) Discourse on Civility and Barbarity. New York: Oxford University Press.
HabermasJürgen (1996) Between Facts and Norms, trans. RehgW.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
HabermasJürgen (2002) Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity, ed. MendietaEduardo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
HabermasJürgen (2008) Between Naturalism and Religion, trans. CroninC.. Cambridge: Polity Press.
22.
HabermasJürgenRatzingerJoseph (2006) Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion, ed. SchullerFlorian, trans. McNeilB.. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
PetersonDerek R.,WalhofDarren R., eds (2002) The Invention of Religion: Rethinking Belief in Politics and History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
34.
RawlsJohn (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
35.
RoyOlivier (2004) Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah. New York: Columbia University Press.
36.
RoyOlivier (2007) Secularism Confronts Islam. New York: Columbia University Press.
