Religion is tremendously important to billions of people in the world. However, thinking about the precise ways that religion is, or even could be, important in political life is not easy. It requires us to square the deep commitments internal to a religious outlook with the wider effects these commitments have for all citizens in a political community, whether or not such citizens are religious. This relationship, between citizens' so-called 'private' religious commitments, and their public role, expression, and the effects of that expression, raises many hard questions for political philosophers and ordinary citizens alike. Particular questions that have held my interest in the past few years are:​

​

-What does it mean to give an 'accessible' religious reason for political action?

-Are religious reasons justificatory (i.e., do they justify political decisions and actions)?

-If they aren't, can they still play other valuable roles in public deliberation?

-Are 'liberal' religious reasons the best contenders to combat 'illiberal' religious reasons?

-Is there anything special about religious speech? Does it contain rhetorical devices and uses of emotion that non-religious citizens can benefit from? Should it?

​

I also ask:

​

-What is a religious identity?

-What is a religious testimony?

-How can religious testimonies be credible? Are religious people who are oppressed more credible with respect to their religious beliefs? Conversely, can they be treated with epistemic injustice in offering a distinctly religious testimony?

 

I have just begun asking:

​

-What does it mean to know our fellow citizens (religious and non-religious)?

-What kind of knowledge does this involve? (Propositional knowledge? know-how? something else?)

-What role does interpersonal knowledge play in the proper functioning of a just democracy? How does it fit with propositional knowledge?

-And does this knowledge say anything about how citizens can achieve 'civic friendship'?

​

I have *very* recent

​

I I have