Persuasive, as opposed to accessible, arguments

You may neither know nor care that writers such as John Rawls have argued that only universally "accessible" arguments should be employed when formulating public policy. In practice, this means that religious arguments, because they depend upon a prior acceptance of suprarational propositions which are not held by all citizens (i.e., not all Americans believe/practice the same religion), are ruled out of order. The Presbyterian Curmudgeon does care, however, and this is his blog. Not only does he care, but he finds these sorts of propositions destructive of the great experiment that is American liberal democracy.

This all comes up because Richard John Nehaus (the original blogger, as described by Andrew Sullivan in a rare moment of insight), in the October 2008 issue of First Things (the original blogger, as described by Andrew Sullivan in a rare moment of insight), passes on these observations by Judge Michael W. McConnell of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in "Secular Reason and the Miguided Attempt to Exclude Religious Argument from Democratic Deliberation": "Once it is recognized that every worldview is held by some and disputed by others, there is no sound reason to block one family of worldviews–religions–from the public square. Arguments are not more or less 'accessible' in the way Rawls posits. They are more or less persuasive, depending on what listeners make of their underlying premises. Democracy is best served by allowing every citizen an equal right to argue for collective public ends with the most persuasive arguments they can muster without prior limitations based on the epistemic, methodological, or ideological premises of their arguments. Then we allow other citizens to accept or reject those arguements, based on their own opinions. That is liberal democracy. That is free government."

Yeah. What he said.