Abstract
Is it ever permissible for the state to formally recognize one religion? This article focuses on just one aspect of this complex question. To be specific, a critical examination is conducted of what will be called the alienation argument against establishment, according to which this sort of connection between religion and the state is wrong to the extent that it makes some people feel alienated. Whilst this argument is often dismissed in contemporary academic analyses, considerations of this kind are frequently heard in political commentary and public debate. In this article, the three most important criticisms made of the alienation argument, which are referred to as psychologism, indeterminacy and falsity, are discussed. By arguing that it may be possible to rebut these three objections, at least to some extent, the aim of the article is to mount a partial defence of the alienation argument against religious establishment. Its conclusion is that feelings of alienation should play a significant role in making all-things-considered judgements about the justifiability of particular instances of establishment.
Highlights
What should the relationship be between religion and politics? This very large and complex question is often discussed in terms of a contrast between separation and establishment
To be specific, the three most important criticisms made of it, those which will be referred to as psychologism, indeterminacy and falsity, are discussed. The first of these criticisms contends that a normative evaluation of establishment cannot be made on the basis of merely subjective feelings of alienation; the second argues that, even if feelings of alienation did carry normative weight, it would still be impossible to decide whether establishment was justified or not; and the third denies the empirical claim that establishment causes some citizens to feel alienated from the state
The alienation argument against establishment says that such a religion–state relationship is wrong to the extent that it alienates some citizens from the state
Summary
What should the relationship be between religion and politics? This very large and complex question is often discussed in terms of a contrast between separation and establishment. A critical assessment is conducted of what will be called the alienation argument This argument says that establishment is wrong to the extent that it makes some people alienated. To be specific, the three most important criticisms made of it, those which will be referred to as psychologism, indeterminacy and falsity, are discussed The first of these criticisms contends that a normative evaluation of establishment cannot be made on the basis of merely subjective feelings of alienation; the second argues that, even if feelings of alienation did carry normative weight, it would still be impossible to decide whether establishment was justified or not; and the third denies the empirical claim that establishment causes some citizens to feel alienated from the state. By arguing that it may be possible to rebut these three objections, at least to some extent, this article’s aim is to try to mount a partial defence of the alienation argument against religious establishment
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
