[lit-ideas] Re: Religion & Public Reason
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:44:58 -0400
Walter O. wrote:
In other words, a "democracy" originally refers to a way of speaking
... a way of giving reasons to others. This is what we need to teach
our young and our 'New Canadians.' ... Perhaps we need to clarify
these imp. points to immigrants coming over in search of "freedom of
religious exercise." We need to make it explicitly clear that "honour
killings" will land you in jail for a very long time, as will physical
and/or emotional abuse of your children. And that if you wish to have
a drivers license issued to you, you will have to have a picture taken
of your face - graven images or not. And if you are a Sikh and you
wish to be a member of the Ontario Motorcycle Patrol, you will have to
remove your turban and wear a motorcycle helmet. Surely these are not
Draconian maxims. After all, Canada is not La France!"
A few quibbles.
First, the important points that Walter suggests should be pointed out
to immigrants are not reasons nor ways of speaking. And I think it is
a good thing that they are not reasons or ways of speaking. Contra
Rawls and Habermas, what distinguishes liberal democracies, like
Canada, is not a rational process but rather a legal process within
which Canadians organize their social and political lives. So, as
Walter notes, we have laws about killing, driver identification and
road safety. There will have been many reasons why these laws were
passed, and these reasons were not necessarily shared by all those
supporting the laws, but for the sake of the country/province, what
matters is the lawfulness of those laws. That is, what matters is
these laws are understood as providing equal and fair constraints or
rights on all, and that these constraints and rights are enforced by
the coercive powers of the government.
Second, when it comes to killing, drivers licenses and helmets, that
some objections to laws are religious is irrelevant. What
distinguishes Canada from France is that, in general, Canadian law
does not concern itself with religious matters, only legal matters.
What makes the French prohibition of the hijab or niqab objectionable
is the obvious hypocrisy of a radically secular state concerning
itself with religious reasons. I would, then, revise Walter's points
so that all immigrants were made aware that the laws of Canada,
including laws regarding killing, driver identification and road
safety, apply equally to all people in Canada.
It is this emphasis on the lawfulness of laws, as opposed to their
reasons, which distinguishes Canada from France.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
