Suchergebnisse

Address before the Am. academy of political and social science, Philadelphia, Apr. 8-9, 1949.

The name Scientology (a copyrighted and registered trademark) brings to mind a wide array of claims, observations, impressions, findings, and documents, reflecting a complex and controversial history. The religion/not religion debate over various groups and organizations, prominent in the Western media over the past thirty years, has usually presented the public and politicians with a religion versus "sect" or "cult" dichotomy. The classification issue in this article is framed differently.Hopkins (1969) offered us the terms of the debate in the bluntest and most direct way when he asked in the title of an article in Christianity Today more than thirty years ago "Scientology: Religion or racket?" Read today, the Hopkins article sounds naive and charitable, but this question still stands before us, and yet deserves an answer

Contemporary debates on freedom of religion are based on the following premises: a) Human beings are born free, as unique individuals with distinct personalities shaped by natural and social influences; b) human rationality, being the seat of human freedoms, is universal; c) Religion, and hence freedom thereof, might as well be relegated to the realm of individual consciousness. This explains the reference to "the freedom of consciousness and belief" in many international and legal documents. d) Therefore as an individual human right, freedom of religion, consisting of one's right to uphold any belief, dogma, conviction or practice, must be protected against external coercion and interference of any sort. So, the question arises as to the nature of freedom of religion; does it belong inside or outside the realm of human rights? It appears that once a religion is perceived from a majority perspective, it is positioned outside and, hence, falls under the political rights - and if it is perceived from a minority perspective or from the point of view of the latecomers to a country, it is positioned inside. It comes easier for some adherents of different religious traditions to try to devalue all the "other religions" in a spirit of competition for influencing public opinion rather than focusing on the common issues facing all religions alike. Freedom of religion is unquestionably one of these issues at stake now. In this paper, I intend to provide a short analysis of the philosophical perspectives developed by some Muslim philosophers on the question of freedom of religion. Since freedom of religion is a social and first-order political issue, it must be dealt with in the theoretical context of social and political philosophy. But contemporary philosophy has almost severed its ties with religion. To the modern view, philosophy involves rational reflection on the nature of things and religion is concerned with practices based on revealed doctrines which are presumably impervious to rational scrutiny. However, I will attempt to argue that freedom of religion can only be resolved by a philosophical perspective on truth, which was the nature of philosophy as understood by some Muslim philosophers, like Alfarabi and Avicenna. We cannot analyze freedom of religion within a single religious perspective, nor one philosophical perspective on modernity. The perspective of these Muslim philosophers of 10th to 13th century are relevant here because for them, philosophy was not just a rational discourse, as it is for us today, but also a matter of academic exchange or statements; it was about primarily ways involving 'practice of spiritual exercises with the aim of the transformation of the self by the acquisition of wisdom."

La religion a joué, historiquement, un rôle certain dans l'émergence de consciences nationales distinctes, même si, par la suite, la démocratisation des sociétés conduisit à réduire son impact. Cette logique émancipatrice s'est toutefois trouvée contestée par un double processus d'ethnicisation de la religion par des nationalismes « organicistes » et de réinvestissement du nationalisme par certains acteurs religieux eux-mêmes. Cette double dynamique a retrouvé aujourd'hui une nouvelle vigueur un peu partout à travers le monde .

Das Forschungsinteresse an Ludwig Börne galt und gilt in erster Linie den Bereichen Politik, Kultur und im Besonderen der Thematik Judenemanzipation. Darauf wird noch zurückzukommen sein. Man sollte bei Börne vor allem kein System suchen. Weder Philosoph noch Theologe, stand für ihn die durchgängige Priorität der Politik einer kohärenten Behandlung religiöser Themen im Wege. Dass in allen seinen, auch den der Aktualität gewidmeten Texten eine dezidiert ethische Grundhaltung wahrnehmbar ist, wurde zwar in der Forschung selten geleugnet: Glaube und Menschenliebe, Toleranz und Wahrheitssuche prägen weitgehend Börnes Bild. Dennoch hält sich daneben das Klischee des exaltierten Jakobiners und naiven, kurzsichtigen Deisten, wie es seit Heine nahezu bis heute tradiert wird. Auch auf diesem Hintergrund wird man die im Folgenden skizzierten Stationen von Börnes religiöser Entwicklung reflektieren müssen.