THE CITY
if secularism does not insist on essentially scientific, hard reason, then it leaves the door open to full engagement with religious worldviews, something which its attempts to segregate and privatize religion suggest that it is not eager to do. Christians, for example, react to this information in two different ways that are compatible. The first is to concede the difficulty of grounding religious and moral claims in rationality, but to point out that secularism has the same problem. Thus, the public square must essentially remain open to all comers, specifically religious or not. The second, and George’s preferred tactic, is to affirm the demand for public reason and to appeal to “fully public reasons provided by principles of natural law and natural justice.� This book has been far more concerned with the first strategy rather than the second, as it argues against secularism rather than for any particularistic Christian positions. If secularism cannot stand up to highly rationalistic requirements for participation in politics, then a version of public reason that leaves religion out of the picture has little value for deployment in the public square. On the other hand, if we expand our understanding of public reason in a manner that is realistic with regard to what secularism really can and cannot offer, then religious contestants, like Robert George, have much to say that is potentially convincing.
Hunter Baker is Associate Provost and Assistant Professor of Government at Houston Baptist University. This essay is adapted from his book, The End of Secularism , which is being published by Crossway this fall. 50