Not Translation, but Conversation
Not Translation, but Conversation
Theology in Public Debate about Euthanasia
This chapter opposes the secularist view that religious or theological speech should be banned from public discourse or translated into publicly accessible language. First, it presents an argument against the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, which, it claims, is at once thoroughly theological and publicly accessible. This involves critical reflection on what it means to be ‘thoroughly theological’ and ‘publicly accessible’. Next, against this understanding of a theological argument the chapter proceeds to assess the relevant theories of Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, and Jeffrey Stout. This assessment analyzes the variety of things that ‘public reason’ can mean, and it explains why the requirement that theological speech be translated into secular discourse is wrong. Finally, the chapter concludes that Stout's model of candid public conversation is implicit in the unofficial late Rawls, and is more satisfactory than the model of translation espoused even by the recent, religion-friendlier Habermas.
Keywords: Jürgen Habermas, public reason, public theology, John Rawls, secularism, Jeffrey Stout, translation
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
