The Library
Do religious justifications distort policy debates? Some empirics on the case for public reason
Tools
Tools
Tools
Kettell, Steven and Djupe, Paul A. (2020) Do religious justifications distort policy debates? Some empirics on the case for public reason. Politics and Religion, 13 (3). pp. 517-543. doi:10.1017/S1755048320000097 ISSN 1755-0483.
|
PDF
WRAP-religious-justifications-distort-policy-debates-empirics-case-public-reason-Kettell-2020.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (1341Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048320000097
Abstract
Scholars engaged in debates about the use of public reason often view religious arguments as being out of bounds. Yet the real-world impact of religious discourse remains under-explored. This study contributes to research in this area with an empirical test looking at the impact of religious arguments on a particular policy debate. A survey experiment explored the effects of religious and secular cues with varied policy directions on the issue of assisted dying. The findings showed that secular arguments were considerably more likely to elicit a positive response, and that, while religious arguments were not a conversation stopper, they produced significant distortions in political perceptions among participants, though not necessarily along the identity lines critical to the public reason debate.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BC Logic B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BT Doctrinal Theology R Medicine > R Medicine (General) |
||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies | ||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Reason , Faith and reason, Euthanasia, Euthanasia -- Religious aspects , Right to die , Debates and debating -- Religious aspects | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Politics and Religion | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Cambridge University Press | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 1755-0483 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | September 2020 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 13 | ||||||||
| Number: | 3 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 517-543 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1017/S1755048320000097 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Reuse Statement (publisher, data, author rights): | This article has been accepted for publication in a revised form for publication in Politics and Religion https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access | ||||||||
| Copyright Holders: | © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2020 | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 8 January 2020 | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 8 January 2020 | ||||||||
| Related URLs: |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
