Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate (Point/Counterpoint)

by Robert Audi (Primary Contributor), Robert Audi

This vigorous debate between two distinguished philosophers presents two views on a topic of worldwide importance: the role of religion in politics. Audi argues that citizens in a free democracy should distinguish religious and secular considerations and give them separate though related roles. Wolterstorff argues that religious elements are both appropriate in politics and indispensable to the vitality of a pluralistic democracy. Each philosopher first states his position in detail, then responds to and criticizes the opposing viewpoint. Written with engaging clarity, Religion in the Public Square will spur discussion among scholars, students, and citizens.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Academic

190 pages, Paperback

First published December 26, 1996

Reviews

[Brad East · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is notable for the civility of the disagreeing writers, the clarity and substance of their different presentations, and the comprehensive persuasiveness of Wolterstorff's critique of Rawlsian liberalism, Audi included.

[Larry Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

brilliant, scholarly, biblical, great book, but not easy reading. the author is one of America's foremost contemporary philosophers.

[Heather]

I am reading this book for Bioethics and Public Policy class.

[Selman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audi is an interesting thinker and a well-equipped philosopher, but I am afraid he is a terrible writer. It's very difficult to read and understand him due to his unnecessarily complex and verbose style of writing (and maybe thinking too).

Wolterstorff, on the other hand, is a brilliant writer. His essays are very clear, well structured and easy to read. They are also illuminative and challenging.

As for their positions, however, I feel like I want to argue for a position closer to Audi's than Wolterstorff's. But then again, I also think Wolterstorff's points and arguments are distinctively better (Or maybe they aren't but it seems to me that they are, because I just am never sure what Audi's points and arguments are anyway).

That is to say, to me, Audi's defence of his position is quite weak. Wolterstorff holds his position a lot better, and he poses very significant challenges to what one might call secularist interpretation of liberal democracy. But there is something somewhat counter-intuitive to me in his position. It's like I feel that his whole discussion is missing an important point but I cannot see what that point might be.

I picked up this book because I was confused about the subject matter. And now, after reading it, I can't say I am any less confused :) But at least it helped me to further familiarize myself with the debate. That's something.