Democratic Citizenship Quiz

The concept that citizens should be provided with clear and justifiable reasons for the laws they are expected to follow and the policies society implements.

The principle that all citizens, regardless of their individual beliefs, should have an equal say in shaping the laws and policies that govern them.

The expectation that citizens, recognizing their diverse beliefs, should be able to justify their actions to others in a way that respects freedom and equality.

The idea that citizens, when engaged in political discourse, should focus on arguments and reasoning that can be shared and accepted by those with differing comprehensive doctrines.

The concept that a well-ordered constitutional regime embodies values that are essential for a just society and should not be easily dismissed.

The situation where a shared agreement on key principles exists among a diverse range of reasonable comprehensive doctrines.

The idea that the duty of citizens to engage in civil discourse, combined with the importance of upholding fundamental political values, leads to the ideal of self-governance where citizens respect each other's perspectives.

The understanding that the ideal of public reason is not merely a compromise but arises naturally from within the reasonable comprehensive doctrines affirmed by individuals.

Evidence obtained through illegal actions like unreasonable searches or seizures, or coercing confessions without informing the suspect of their rights.

A limitation on testifying in court where a spouse cannot be forced to give testimony against their partner.

The principle that decisions on public issues should not be based solely on personal preferences or comprehensive doctrines, but on considerations that are persuasive to all reasonable people.

Values, rights, and duties that are considered essential for functioning as a just and fair society.

The principle that public reason should be built upon the idea that basic rights and liberties, as well as fundamental values, should be respected and advanced.

The concept that voting is not merely a private expression of personal preferences or comprehensive beliefs, but should be guided by public reasons that are shared and accepted by all citizens.

The view that individuals should cast their votes based on what they believe to be true and right, even if their beliefs are not universally accepted.

The idea that citizens, even with diverse beliefs, should hold themselves accountable to a shared set of principles and guidelines that everyone can reasonably endorse.

A set of values, beliefs, and principles that guide a person's life, encompassing their worldview, religion, morality, and personal philosophy.

The state's power should not be used to enforce any specific comprehensive doctrine over others, ensuring equal political power for everyone.

Citizens have a duty to engage in civil discourse, using arguments based on public reason to justify their positions.

A liberal conception of justice focuses on promoting individual freedom and equality within a political system.

The acceptance of public reason doesn't mean accepting every detail of a specific liberal conception of justice, but rather agreeing on the core principles that underlie it.

Different rules for reasoning are used in different contexts, like courts, scientific societies, and corporations, due to unique constraints and goals of each context.

In democratic societies, private organizations (like churches) hold authority over their members, which is accepted by society. This authority functions separate from the state's power.

The right to disagree with a church's teachings and leave without legal penalties. This is an example of how individual rights protect individuals from institutions.

Basic rights and liberties protect individuals from organizations like churches, and vice versa, preventing either party from having too much power. This ensures a balance of power.

The authority of churches over their members depends on a shared understanding of beliefs and values, and the freedom to leave the group without legal consequences. This is what establishes the boundaries of nonpublic power.

Nonpublic reasoning adapts to the goals and context of an association. For example, a church council uses different criteria than a scientific association to reach conclusions.

Nonpublic power, like the authority of a church, is accepted by society because individuals remain free to choose whether to agree with and remain a part of the organization.

The freedom of association protects individuals and organizations from undue intrusion by the government or other powerful groups. This ensures a balance of power among different entities in society.

Nonpublic reasoning is essential for understanding how different groups develop their own norms, values, and decision-making processes. This diversity is crucial for a healthy society.

The idea that citizens should justify their political decisions using arguments that all reasonable people can understand and accept, even if they disagree on comprehensive doctrines.

The idea that citizens can present arguments based on their comprehensive doctrines in political discourse, as long as these arguments strengthen the ideal of public reason.

The goal of public reason is best achieved when individuals and societies are well-ordered, meaning they share a common understanding of basic values and principles.

The principle that the ideal of public reason should evolve and adapt to different political and social conditions.

How public reason is judged. Public reason that strengthens its own conditions and principles in the long run is preferred.

A law that aligns with moral principles and the law of God. It is an ethical and just code.

Any law that goes against moral principles and is not in harmony with the law of God. It is an unjust and discriminatory code.

A law that does not apply equally to everyone. The majority inflicts it on a minority, but does not bind themself to it.

A law that is enforced equally upon the majority and the minority, as both groups are expected to abide by it.

A law that is imposed on a minority who had no say in creating it. They were denied the right to vote or participate in its creation.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s writings and speeches, including "Give us the Ballot", his address on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, and his "I Have a Dream" speech, all highlight the concept of unjust laws.

Though his arguments were rooted in religious principles, MLK Jr.'s view on just and unjust laws aligns with constitutional values and can be understood by people of diverse beliefs.

The ability for citizens to justify their actions and decisions to others based on shared values, even if they have different personal beliefs.