John McCreery wrote: "What I conceive as universal values may be quite different in many respects from those of, say, religious or market fundamentalists. Does faith in my God or my Market override the nation's merely political claims?" It seems to me that it depends on what is meant by a 'political claim.' I am currently reading John Rawls' _Political Liberalism_. At the heart of this book is the claim that there are different kinds of liberalism and that what we ought to be aiming for is the political kind. A political liberalism assumes a society where there will be competing and non-translatable fundamental commitments. Also assuming the desire to avoid violence, a political liberalism occurs with the formation of a shared discourse, a political discourse, that aims to allow for the pursuit of those fundamental commitments by providing a venue for discussion when those commitments conflict. This is still the liberalism Rawls articulated in _A Theory of Justice_ but it is more nuanced in allowing for the possibility of legitimate yet incommensurable fundamental commitments co-existing within the political. On this account, the political, and the claims made from within it, cannot be defined in advance except to say that it is what the various interested parties agree on. Given this state of affairs, the political claims made within a society would account for the various 'faiths' involved. This does not mean that there wouldn't be conflict but it would be of an acceptable sort. If a time came where one's fundamental commitments overrode the political, one would in effect be abdicating ones place in that society. I disagree with some aspects of Rawls' account of liberalism, but I think he is on to something with this notion of the political. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html