Search results

The logic of civil religion consists of minimizing community in order to maximize pluralism. Every modern society needs pluralism on the one hand, and securing of its foundations on the other. Still, civil religion may raise suspicion with regard to use of religion for political purposes. And instrumentalization is contradictory to the character of religion, although the latter always has political consequences as well. Civil religion serves politics with the aim of educating citizens. Perhaps, however, it can also be perceived as preparation of totalitarian beliefs and liturgies, such as are known to us from the first half of the 20th century. Civil religion can go hand in hand with excessive nationalism, proselytism, and Satanization of enemies. Such undesirable consequences of civil religion are discussed in this article on the basis of examples from the time of the French Revolution. The Revolution was largely marked by civil religion, the former even legitimized the latter. Four examples from the history of the French Revolution are analyzed: human rights as civil religion; cult of reason and of the supreme being; worship of the Revolution's "martyr" Jean-Paul Marat, and, finally, Satanization of enemies. Following his expose, the author confronts these questions: Is the confusing element of civil religion the fact that it wants to utilize religion per se for political purposes? What is it that protects civil religion from degenerating into nationalism and proselytism? Or else civil religion can be both: the basis of a tolerant pluralist democracy as well as the preparatory stage of totalitarianism? Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the relation between politics, state and religion from the political-science perspective, as part of an analysis and evaluation of tasks, achievements and failures of polity, policy or politics from the standpoint of normative-constructive philosophy of equity. At present the central task of policy is to stimulate and strengthen the Western political culture based on the fundamental distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" pluralism. "Reasonable" pluralism rests on the assumption that the state is a just power, the sovereignty of which can be recognized in distinguishing the "public" and the "private", the just and the good, and, in connection therewith, it is almost self-understandable that such a liberal guaranteed private sphere must be the primary arena of religious practice and religious freedoms. The crucial trait of the relation between state and religion is manifest in the fact that only the legal state and the liberal constitution are competent to state what the freedom of individuals consists of within the framework of norms of what is just. The author defines "religion" in the comprehensive sense as central to the processes of forming cultural identity, and he deems that cultural policy (which, in principle, has to do with relations between state and religion), as policy of equitable integration of multi-culturally shaped political unities, must be oriented toward stimulation of those attitudes and values which make possible the reasonable pluralism defined according to Rawls. Since the political encompasses also the possibility to make enemies, the author advocates the cultural policy of "weakening the feelings of enmity" (N. Elias). In this way, a systematic concept of policy would be created, one which would reflect and preserve the conditions of reasonable pluralism. On the policy level and, in particular, on the politics level, cultural policy is a very demanding project. Perhaps it is precisely Switzerland, with its special prospects of civil democracy, that offers promising cultural-policy opportunities for activity, which are as yet still insufficiently researched. Adapted from the source document.

Kant's philosophy of religion is inseparably linked with his onto-gnoseological & ethic concepts. The author explains his concept of religion within the limits of practical reason as well as his theoretical agnosticism. We can only have certain ideas & beliefs about the transcedental, God, & immorality of the soul -- they are solely the notions of practical reason -- but we cannot have any theoretical knowledge. The author shows how the absence of critical awareness about the possibility of rational cognition leads to various kinds of dogmatism. Adapted from the source document.

Kant's philosophy of religion is inseparably linked with his onto-gnoseological & ethic concepts. The author explains his concept of religion within the limits of practical reason as well as his theoretical agnosticism. We can only have certain ideas & beliefs about the transcedental, God, & immorality of the soul -- they are solely the notions of practical reason -- but we cannot have any theoretical knowledge. The author shows how the absence of critical awareness about the possibility of rational cognition leads to various kinds of dogmatism. Adapted from the source document.

The paper starts from hypothesis that current religious change may be best approached within the categorical framework not of a sociology of religion, conceived of & practiced as a sociology of religion of individuals & values, but a political sociology of religion (Guizzardi), focused on political exchange aimed at generating legitimacy &, therefore, creating consensus. Two current complementary trends of religious change, described as politicization of religion & religionization of politics (Robertson), are interpreted in such a way. First, some aspects of the current politicization of religion have been identified & described. Second, the crucial aspects of the religionization of politics, projected primarily on the background of transitional processes in former Yugoslavia, have been identified & analyzed. Finally, an interpretation of such trends has been elaborated, basically by taking into consideration two crucial discrepancies & their precariousness. The first one is the discrepancy & precariousness of legitimacy of dominant political strategies to be obtained by a politics coherently situated in the relative, dissociated from any kind of absolute & sacred. The second is the discrepancy & precariousness of a possible religious revival to be achieved strictly on religious bases. 35 References. Adapted from the source document.