leiter on religious reasons

I think Rob is correct that Leiter is off on the wrong track in his contribution to this discussion. Leiter certainly has a conception of reasons that he thinks are an appropriate basis for governmental action. He says that only "public reasons" count. That "sectarian, religious beliefs" don't. How do we tell which category we are in. He says, unhelpfuly, that this is on the basis of a "head count." Previously he said that the only reasons that count are "public reasons acceptable to all reasonable people." So, apparently, the only people whose "heads" are being counted are  "reasonable" people. As lots of people have discussed, "reasonable" in this context means those who accept a narrow form of secular rationality that is confined to a very tiny segment of the population. Leiter tells us that Bush's view is religious becasue he says that it depends on ensoulment. I don't think that is true. (I don't believe that the Catholic Church has ever taken a position on the precise time that ensoulment occurs and the Church's respect for human life at all stages of development doesn't depend on ensoulment. See Donum Vitae on this point.)

I think one of the best things written on this is a piece published by Michael McConnell entitled "Five Reasons to Reject the Claim that Religious Arguments Should be Excluded from Democratic Deliberation," and published at 1999 Utah L. Rev. 639. There, McConnell concluded: "One false view of separation is the view that religious ideas must not serve as rationales for public policy. This view, called the 'principle of secular rationale,' is put forward as a means of protecting the public sphere from divisive, absolutist, intolerant impulses and from arguments that cannot be supported on the basis of accessible public reasons. But in fact, it rests on inaccurate stereotypes and questionable epistemological premises, and it would disenfranchise religious persons as full participating members of the political community. The United States has never adhered to the principle of secular rationale. Indeed, our political history is rife with religious political activists and religious political arguments....There is no good democratic argument for excluding them. But more than this: to exclude them would be inconsistent with the very ideals of democratic equality that the principle of secular rationale ostensibly seeks to protect. It is time to stop challenging our fellow citizen's right to be part of democratic dialogue, and time to engage their arguments on the merits."   

Richard M.