Monday, October 19, 2009
Brian Leiter argues, here, that there is no good reason to privilege religious freedom over moral freedom (though BL does not use the latter term).
Michael Perry argues, here, that given the best--in the sense of most ecumenical--argument for privileging religious freedom, liberal democracy should also privilege moral freedom.
1. Do BL and MP converge in their conclusions?
2. If so, do their arguments in support of that conclusion differ--and if so, how?
3. If their arguments differ, which is the better argument in the context of the dominant religious &/or moral convictions and commitments of the citizenry of the United States? Please explain.