The contributors to this book reexamine the issues raised by The Naked Public Square in light of contemporary trends, debates, and jurisprudence. Gerard Bradley and Mary Ann Glendon debate whether the constitutional law has become more or less "strict separationist" since the publication of The Naked Public Square. Joseph Weiler discusses the implications of European elites' refusal to include a reference to Christianity in the proposed European Constitution. A number of contributors — Michael Pakaluk, John Finnis, Rogers Smith, and William Galston — point out the theoretical inadequacy of John Rawls’s concept of "public reason," which has been used to exclude religious arguments from public discourse, but they offer quite different theoretical frameworks for understanding the relation of politics and religion. Hadley Arkes and Richard John Neuhaus reflect on The Naked Public Square and subsequent developments in America. The result is an invaluable combination of legal analysis and theoretical reflection on religion and politics, an issue that is destined to remain central to American political and social affairs.
|What They're Saying...||N/A|
|Eligible for Readers Club Discount||Yes|