Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Deliberation, Reason, and Indigestion: Response to Daniel Dombrowski’s Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism

Deliberation, Reason, and Indigestion: Response to Daniel Dombrowski’s Rawls and Religion: The... Zandra Wagoner / University of La Verne Democracy requires a rather large tolerance for confusion and a secret relish for dissent. --Molly Ivins, Nothin' But Good Times Ahead 1 I. Introduction am delighted to respond to Daniel Dombrowski's book Rawls and Religion. Dombrowski and I share a number of what he would call comprehensive doctrine, such as the ethical treatment of animals, the relational worldview of process thought, and the idiosyncratic love of pacifism. So, immediately I was drawn in and claimed Dombrowski as a kindred spirit. With so many commonalities, including an interest in political philosophy and religion, I approached this book with a built-in desire to engage with and respect his thinking. To be honest, I wondered if I would be able to critically engage Dombrowski's book given our common worlds, but of course, in a pluralist world of free and equal citizens, our comprehensive doctrines can only overlap to a certain degree. And as Dombrowski rightly cautions, "too much unity leads to monotony."2 It is in the spirit of both deep appreciation and necessary contrast that I offer the following comments. My comments are structured around four themes: A difference in emphasis, religious participation in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Theology & Philosophy University of Illinois Press

Deliberation, Reason, and Indigestion: Response to Daniel Dombrowski’s Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-illinois-press/deliberation-reason-and-indigestion-response-to-daniel-dombrowski-s-42BCmujGcF
Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Illinois Press
ISSN
2156-4795
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Zandra Wagoner / University of La Verne Democracy requires a rather large tolerance for confusion and a secret relish for dissent. --Molly Ivins, Nothin' But Good Times Ahead 1 I. Introduction am delighted to respond to Daniel Dombrowski's book Rawls and Religion. Dombrowski and I share a number of what he would call comprehensive doctrine, such as the ethical treatment of animals, the relational worldview of process thought, and the idiosyncratic love of pacifism. So, immediately I was drawn in and claimed Dombrowski as a kindred spirit. With so many commonalities, including an interest in political philosophy and religion, I approached this book with a built-in desire to engage with and respect his thinking. To be honest, I wondered if I would be able to critically engage Dombrowski's book given our common worlds, but of course, in a pluralist world of free and equal citizens, our comprehensive doctrines can only overlap to a certain degree. And as Dombrowski rightly cautions, "too much unity leads to monotony."2 It is in the spirit of both deep appreciation and necessary contrast that I offer the following comments. My comments are structured around four themes: A difference in emphasis, religious participation in

Journal

American Journal of Theology & PhilosophyUniversity of Illinois Press

Published: Sep 26, 2010

There are no references for this article.