"Chains of Persuasion in the Deliberative System: Addressing the Pragmatics of Religious Inclusion"
[Forthcoming in "The Journal of Politics" 2015.]
"If one accepts that religious arguments ought to be included in democratic deliberations, three problems immediately arise. First, religious arguments will not persuade those who do not accept the religious premises, so religious arguments do not seem to contribute to deliberative opinion and will formation. Second, democratic arguments will not persuade religious citizens who prioritize their religious commitments ("integralists"), who seem to be excluded from deliberative opinion and will formation. Third, if an integralist makes a religious argument intending to persuade, then she seems to be appealing to an invidious double standard: she expects her fellows to be potentially persuaded by her religious argument when she is not reciprocally open to persuasion on the basis of their comprehensive views. I argue that approaching deliberation from a deliberative systems view provides a powerful approach to each of these three problems unavailable to more traditional understandings of deliberative democracy."
Benjamin Hertzberg is Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University. More papers by Benjamin Hertzberg are available here.