{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014581734458940905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.791666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Different Mode of Encounter: Egalitarian Liberalism and the Christian Tradition

Abstract This essay reads Politics and Passion as a philosophical complement to theological projects that see no innate conflict between Christianity and liberalism and considers the significance of Waltzer's "more egalitarian liberalism" from the perspective of one who believes there to be compelling theological, ethical and political grounds for "making common cause" with liberalism. Liberal human rights discourse provides the lens through which this case is argued. This essay endorses the revisions proposed in Politics and Passion and suggests that developments in human rights discourse since the early twentieth century allows one to regard this discourse as a still unfinished version of Waltzer's more egalitarian liberalism. I argue that it is precisely because of the pressures identified by Waltzer that a thicker, more contextually varied conceptualization of rights has been generated. Moreover, when human rights language is understood as a discourse of egalitarian rather than emancipatory liberalism, then the claims that it is irredeemably secular, individualistic and voluntaristic, and that its adoption will result in the marginalization of Christian narrative traditions, are no longer tenable.