Suchergebnisse

Regardless of the role religion plays in the world today, ie despite the significant deprivatization of faith in the sociocultural space & in politics, contemporary Czech sociology of religion is in rather poor shape. The author presents a number of factors to explain this, including the legacy of the communist regime, & low levels of church attendance in the Czech Republic, the latter having been erroneously interpreted as non-religiosity. But the author focuses mainly one other reason: the discordant legacy of Czech pre-communist sociology of religion & the neighboring field of social studies. Two different traditions of the subject are identified - the 'profane' sociology of religion, founded by T. G. Masaryk, & Catholic religious sociology. Although the former legacy declared itself non-religious & even anti-clerical, in the case of many of its followers this claim was only partially true. In the 1930s & 1940s, when they (especially Prague's sociological school, which formed a certain opposition to Masaryk) turned more toward Durkheimian attitudes, they emphasized, for example, their own religious experience as a necessary tool for understanding piety. On the other hand, Catholic religious sociology was closely related to church activism, policy, & contemporary social work, ie, strictly conservative & anti-modern. Its way of understanding modern society was discounted by the former group of scholars, though to at least some degree, the two legacies shared similar methodological approaches. Both certainly seem outdated today, but their theoretical & methodological discussions & their findings remain of importance. Consequently, a re-thinking of these legacies & their theoretical backgrounds is still significant for the sociology of religion today.

In the author's opinion we can agree that the theories of contractualism provide an excellent foundation for the legitimization of democracy. At the same time, he claims that democracy, and liberal democracy in particular, cannot be said to be the necessary outcome of social contract. Hobbes was the advocate of absolute monarchy, although his theory permiabsolute aristocracy as well as absolute democracy. Locke, a supporter of a limed monarchy, emphasized the principles of people's sovereignty. Rousseau, an apologist for thel will, tended to support such the solon that it is not the people's will but the wisest ones' whichrulthe sciety as long as they have the people's benefit in mind. Glorifying hisgeneral will, Roussau has become the founder of modern political totalitarianism. When discussing the relations between state and religion/church the above three classic speculators on the theory of social contract assumed the individual freedom of religious beliefs. Ultimately, it is the state though that regulates the external manifestations of faith, as it is the only political entity to arbitrate conflicts between individual interests, and express the pubgood, whatever that means.