Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square [Paperback]

Brendan Sweetman (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 14, 2006

Can religion and politics mix? Many voices reply, "No way!" Yet in this provocative and timely book, Brendan Sweetman argues against this charge and the various sophisticated arguments that support it. As we witness the clash of religious and secular worldviews he claims that our pluralistic democratic society will be best served when the faith elements of secularism are acknowledged and the rational elements of religious arguments are allowed to inform the momentous debates taking place in the public square. In fact, Sweetman contends that "politics needs religion if it is to be truly democratic, concerned with fairness among worldviews, equality and a vigorous public discussion."

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Why Politics Needs Religion is a wonderfully practical and plain-spoken defense not only of the use of religious reasoning in public dialogue, but also of the legitimacy of seeing secular reasoning as no less 'religious.' It will serve as a welcome aid to those religious people who feel marginalized--even besieged--by the secularist boundaries built around much public debate in our day." (William R. Stevenson Jr., Professor of Political Science, Calvin College )

"This is a unique book on a desperately important topic for our times. Every person's life is governed by a worldview, for good or ill, but very few people realize how this works or understand the vast influence their worldview exercises on how they see and think about events and people. Hence, they remain more or less at the mercy of their overall orientation in life--and those of others. This clear, thorough and forceful treatment of the indispensable contribution that religion and religion alone can make to public life helps us get past many of the confusions that now mar our legislatures, courts and other public arenas. Most of all, educators need to study it carefully and use it with their students." (Dallas Willard, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, author of The Divine Conspiracy and Hearing God )

"It is commonly said today that public discourse is dangerously polarized. This important book shows how the polarization is not just over conflicting political and moral views. It is over how we define what counts as genuinely public discourse. The interaction of religion and politics is as inescapable as are disagreements about that interaction inevitable. This book brings to the discussion a rare mastery of diverse arguments combined with a generosity of spirit and penetrating insight that can help us engage our differences within the bond of civility." (The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, Editor-in-Chief, First Things )

From the Publisher

* Addresses a central and ongoing issue in the culture-wars debates

* Clear, readable and persuasive argument for the proper place of religious beliefs in the public arena

* Incisive analysis of secularism, its assumed beliefs and its limited prospects for contributing to a civil society

* Provides guidance and correctives for proper involvement of Christians in civil debate that will benefit all in a democratic society

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: IVP Academic; Print On Demand Edition edition (August 14, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0830828427
• ISBN-13: 978-0830828425
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,221,749 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

DR BRENDAN SWEETMAN, a native of Dublin, Ireland, is Professor of Philosophy at Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, USA. He is the author or editor of nine books, including RELIGION AND SCIENCE: AN INTRODUCTION (Continuum Books, 2010), THE VISION OF GABRIEL MARCEL (Rodopi, 2008), RELIGION: KEY CONCEPTS IN PHILOSOPHY (Continuum, 2007), WHY POLITICS NEEDS RELIGION: THE PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE (InterVarsity, 2006), and, most recently, A GABRIEL MARCEL READER (St. Augustine's Press, 2011). He has published more than seventy articles and reviews in a variety of journals, collections and reference works, including INTERNATIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY, AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY, FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY, PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI, REVIEW OF METAPHYSICS, DICTIONARY OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY, AMERICAN NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY, and the POLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. Professor Sweetman has been a Visiting Scholar at several universities and colleges in the U.S., and, internationally, has given lectures in Canada, Poland, Portugal, India, Italy, Ireland and China. He writes regularly in the areas of philosophy of religion, continental philosophy, political philosophy and moral philosophy.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Religious Arguments in the Public Square, October 10, 2006

By 

Wilburn T. Stancil (Kansas City, MO USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square (Paperback)

The title of this book, "Why Politics Needs Religion," might surprise, because the often repeated mantra is that religion has no place in the public square. In fact for some, any discourse informed by religious opinions is off limits. Of course, public policy is shaped by persons, and persons are not so easily compartmentalized in such a way that their religious values are suspended when acting on behalf of the public. As it turns out, however, even those who purport to approach the public square in strict neutrality bring with them a worldview containing specific ideas about the nature of reality, the nature of human beings, beliefs about morality, etc. Philosopher Brendan Sweetman's argument, then, is that in a liberal democratic society, it is not only appropriate but necessary to introduce religious arguments into political issues, both because it is the fair thing to do in a democratic society and because religion is such a dominate player in the lives of so many living in our society, Christianity in particular.

With this thesis in mind, Sweetman lays out his arguments logically and carefully. Based on his criteria of what constitutes a worldview, he demonstrates that secularism is as much a worldview as is Christianity. Further, he dispels the myth that religion is based simply on faith, void of rational foundations. Sweetman then critically analyzes eight arguments often offered for restricting religious discourse in politics, such as the argument that religious beliefs are not fully rational, that secular reason is neutral toward religion, that religious beliefs are dangerous but secularism is benign, and others. In the remainder of the book Sweetman presents his own views on the role religion can play in political issues, applying his arguments to such controversial issues as school payer, euthanasia, the display of religious symbols in public places, and others.

"Why Politics Needs Religion" is timely. As Americans face a political landscape that is more and more polarized, what we don't need is the exploitation of religion by politicians from the left or the right. What we do need, rather, is more political discussion that has been informed by a wide range of arguments, including religious ones. "Why Politics Needs Religion" is a step in that direction, forcefully and cogently asserting that all reasonable arguments deserve to be heard, including religious ones. This book will doubtlessly generate discussion. It is valuable not only for those who work in public life but for all citizens who care about the quality and content of discourse that goes on in politics.

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Reason in Religion, September 26, 2006

By 

Edward J. Furton - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square (Paperback)

Those who believe that reason and religion have no connection between them will be surprised by this book. Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke of the importance of reason in the life of faith, and it was striking how many commentators in the media found his remarks almost incomprehensible. All religions are irrational, aren't they? For many in the media and academic establishments, religion is another word for the opposite of science, which supposedly has a lock on all rational inquiry.

Sweetman disassembles such claims in this timely book. Like Pope Benedict, he realizes that reason is in fact the key element in any well-defined faith. Rationally plausible religious statements, Sweetman contends, belong in American public life. He begins by distinguishing between two levels of religious statements, those that are dependent upon the particular teachings of a revealed religion, and those broader and more universal statements that are amenable to reason. For example, to say God is a Trinity is beyond our rational comprehension, but to say that God's existence can be deduced from nature is a reasonable statement given our observations on the world at large. Because statements like the latter have a rational foundation, Sweetman argues that they ought to be allowed within our nation's public life and, more importantly, should influence our public debates on moral matters.

Scientists themselves have their own beliefs, for example, that all of nature can be reduced to the material interaction of atomic particles or other such naturalistic claims. Sweetman shows that this is an assumption that is made before one even begins to practice science and for which there can be no proof, other than the belief that it must be true. He rightly classifies such beliefs as no different from religious beliefs.

Sweetman also does an excellent job of skewering the arguments of secularism. He is not afraid to address the most neuralgic moral issues of our day. Abortion, euthanasia, school prayer, etc., are all discussed insightfully. One of the key sections is Chapter 3, Religious Beliefs and Reason. Sweetman here argues for the rationality of many commonly held religious beliefs and makes a good case for leveling the playing-field between secularists and believers. The secularists want to claim that the public square belongs to them exclusively by saying that only non-religious arguments (that is, their own arguments) merit public consideration, while any statement with a connection with religious conviction must be set aside without any debate as inappropriate. Obviously, this is not only unfair, but also one of those secular beliefs for which there can be no proper justification.

The Founders, of course, wanted a separation of Church and State. The sectarian doctrines of private religious traditions do not belong in our public life. Sweetman therefore sets these aside. But the Founders were completely open and encouraging of religious ideas that were informed by reason. These, Sweetman shows, belong within our public life.

Christians interested in a new angle on how to influence public debate will find many valuable insights in this very thoughtful and well-reasoned book.

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Informed faith in the public square, February 14, 2007

By 

William Muehlenberg (Melbourne Australia) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square (Paperback)

We are told that religion and politics don't mix. But it is often the irreligious who make such claims. Secularists do not want people of faith to have any input into the political process. But given that the majority of the world's population is religious, it is reasonable to expect religion to inform and flavour the political debate.

There are at least three ways in which religion can influence and interact with politics. One is the sacred public square model, in which religion takes over the public arena. This theocratic model is best exemplified in the Islamic view of religion and politics, in which there is no sacred/secular distinction.

Another is the naked public square model, in which religion is decidedly and deliberately absent from the public arena, being a privatised faith relegated to the purely personal sphere. This is what the secularists and atheists are gunning for.

Finally there is the civic public square model, in which competing religious belief systems are allowed to slug it out, intellectually and ideologically, in the public arena. In this model various religious arguments are made, and may the best man - or religion - win. That is the model argued for in this book.

Sweetman, an American philosophy professor, claims that all religions have a right to enter the social and political debates of the day. Modern pluralism is not threatened or harmed by allowing religious argumentation about current social debates. In fact, it is strengthened by it.

He insists that all worldviews have a genuine place in the democratic process, and that non-religious positions promote their own worldviews, just as the various religions do. Indeed, he demonstrates that even secular humanism is a worldview and a religion.

A worldview, says Sweetman, is a philosophy of life, dealing with such issues are the nature of reality, what it means to be human, and how we think about right and wrong. It also contains certain life-regulating beliefs. Clearly the major world religions deal with such considerations, but so too does secularism and humanism.

And all worldviews have a faith component. That is, not all of their claims and beliefs can be fully and absolutely proven or established, so there is a belief commitment. Every worldview, even the secular worldview, has this faith component.

Philosophical naturalists, for example, have a commitment to the belief that all that matters is matter. It is not something that can be proven with absolute certainty, but is instead a philosophical presupposition.

There is nothing wrong with having such faith commitments, Sweetman suggests. We all hold to some beliefs without absolute surety, but we have substantial and reasonable grounds for holding to such beliefs. Thus religious folk can have strong, probable and rational grounds for holding to various beliefs, just as secularists do.

In this volume Sweetman spends a fair amount of time demonstrating just how secularism is in fact a worldview, even a religion. He shows how these secularists are not just against certain things (religion, God, the supernatural, etc.) but in fact have many things they are positively promoting and advocating, such as their philosophical naturalism, their materialistic reductionism, and so on.

Moreover, many secularists want in fact to establish a "seculocracy". They want to see established by law their views on a whole range of issues, be it evolution, moral relativism or a fully naked public arena. These goals can be clearly seen in the various Humanist Manifestos that have been produced (1933, 1973 and 2000).

Sweetman next argues that if secularism is as much of a worldview and a religion as is Christianity, then both should be treated the same: both should have equal access to the public square, and both should be allowed to set forth their case, and let the people decide which is the preferred option, at least on various public policy issues.

But secularists do not even want the debate to take place. They act as if they alone should have exclusive access to the public arena, and that all religions must be privatised affairs, with no influence whatsoever in the social and political spheres.

But Sweetman says that all worldviews should have this access to the public sphere. He teases this idea out by looking at several contentious debates, such as the abortion issue, and shows how in a pluralistic and democratic society, those with religious convictions can just as properly, and reasonably, put forth their case as the secularists.

Indeed, as the author argues, politics needs religion. If the state is to treat its citizens fairly and equally, then it must create a level playing field in which all religions and worldviews are allowed to flourish and promote their vision of the public good.

It is possible that secularism might prevail. Or some religion, like Christianity. But that is what a democracy is all about, letting the people decide what set of core beliefs and values they wish to model their nation on. A fair and democratic political system will allow vigorous debate on the issues that concern its citizens, and not allow one group (increasingly in the West, the secularists) to have an unfair monopoly over the public arena.

This book deserves wide reading, if we are to forestall the secularists from cutting of the much needed debate on the important issues of the day.