Search

This paper examines the appropriateness of the use of religious language in the American political sphere. The paper will make use of public reason and public discourse theories by John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, and Michael Walzer. Rawls, Habermas' and Walzer's theories have ample overlap despite their many disagreements. Their primary agreement is that the highest levels of government must remain secular, a stance I adopt. However, Habermas and Walzer see religion as a part of general will formation. Religion helps to form morals and values, so completely striping religion from the public sphere would overly restrict who could participate in public debate. I agree with Walzer and Habermas on this point and argue that Rawls' public reason (without his postscript) was overly restrictive and ultimately undemocratic. I then applied my theory to examine three recent examples of religious language in the political sphere: a speech by presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stating that the U.S. Constitution should better adhere to the bible; a statement opposing abortion released by the Society of Jesus; and the Supreme Court case questioning whether "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was a violation of the Establishment Clause's rules regarding separation of church and state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]