Suchergebnisse

Der Politischen Theologie kann man sich auf drei Arten nähern, wobei sich diese hermeneutischen Zugänge nach ihrem jeweiligen Verhältnis von Politikwissenschaft und Theologie unterscheiden lassen: ein erster Zugang betont die substantielle Beziehung zwischen den beiden Disziplinen und ihrem jeweiligen Gehalt; ein zweiter Zugang unterstreicht die begriffsgeschichtliche Abkunft der Politikwissenschaft von der Theologie; und ein dritter Zugang legt Wert auf das rhetorische Moment innerhalb der Politischen Theologie. Während die ersten beiden Ansätze in der Vergangenheit in großem Maße Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen haben, wurde das rhetorische Moment nur selten Gegenstand eingehender Untersuchungen. Der vorliegende Aufsatz betont dagegen die rhetorische Dimension der Politischen Theologie und verweist auf deren häufige Versuche, mittels metaphorischer Bezüge auf "Theologie" im politischen und wissenschaftlichen Streit zu obsiegen. (Zeitschrift für Politik / FUB)

In his work politische Religionen Voegelin presented a theory of totalitarianism in 1938 which, since the nineties, has been rediscovered & discussed. His thesis is that totalitarianism is a symptom of decline as a consequence of the loss of transcendental experience in modern times. Instead of this, totalitarian religious surrogates are created seeking salvation in the world. The article shows that Voegelin developed his theory based on the background of the controversy of constitutional theory between Hans Kelsen & Carl Schmitt. Kelsen's positivistic criticism unmasks Left & Right collectivism as forms of "political theology"; & Schmitt criticizes that Kelsen himself is also a "political theologian." Voegelin drew the conclusion that both positivism & political theology are typical forms of "political religion" with totalitarian implications. Totalitarianism is therefore not an interruption of civilization but an expression of modern politics. Adapted from the source document.

Although the concept of "integration" is widely discussed in Germany, few know that it can be traced back to Rudolf Smend's constitutional theory ("Integrationslehre"). Smend's concept is an antipluralistic & antiparliamentarian political theory. His axiomatic premise is not a pluralistic society but -- as in Carl Schmitt's political theology -- a homogeneous political unity ("Staat" & "Volk"). However, popular demand for "integration" of immigrants as a precondition for political rights is not only a useless instrument in the fight against xenophobia but rather an expression of it. Only a democratically legitimized constitution can be the basis for the "political unity" of a society -- an old idea which has been discussed from Aristotle until 20th-century political theory. Therefore, the right to vote is everyone's right. 99 References. Adapted from the source document.

Important theses in Carl Schmitts's "Political Theology" appear today to be no less convincing than seventy years ago. In spite of that, the central argumentation remains unclear and contradictory. Epistemologically and methodologically, Schmitt does not succeed in proving that jurisprudence can integrate historical and sociological viewpoints. Accordingly he is unable to show, counter to the "positivist" jurists, that the decisive phenomenon of the state of emergency can be grasped through specific juristic conceptualization. Moreover, the state of emergency is seen only from the perspective of the contemporary sovereign, and this viewpoint weakens the programmatic connection between the concept of sovereignty and the state of emergency while it unintentionally strengthens the positivistic position. After a discussion of Schmitt's false interpretation of Kelsen's theory, it is shown that Schmitt's contradictions regarding the treatment of the question of sovereignty are bound up with his ignorance of the essential difference between traditional medieval and modern concepts of sovereignty. Donoso Cortes and Hobbes are therefore mistakenly held to be exponents of the same view of sovereignty. Finally it is maintained that Schmitt's one-sided normative interpretation of "decision" entails a false historical assessment of liberalism in which liberal theory is confused with liberal practice. (Der Staat / AuD)

The present article starts off with a lecture of cultural theory as the handling of a rupture, in which the referenda in France and the Netherlands take their part, and that have led to describing Europe rather as radically changing than consisting of a firm shape and structure. Revolutionary or reactionary in that context are expressions that mean both everything, all, nobody and nothing, and Europe's transition into what exactly often posed. Haltern, for example, putting forward a reactivation of normative resources regarding cultural theoretical jurisprudence. With that, he parallels the tendency to recommend cultural sciences as fundamental judicial science, orienting himself on Paul Kahn's draft on judicial culturalism. Falling back on a cultural theoretical analysis is no dispensation for accuracy. Questions regarding judicial genealogy and architecture can be answered neither clearly nor at will. Contributions emerge over and over, with different stories, from different backgrounds and different places, an accumulation of the different European cultures. Which leads to the situation that cultural theory remains faced with the impossibility of its own terminology, covering everything from yeast bacteria, to Hooligans, to Haute Couture. In part two, three, four and five, a treatment of cultural theory as a double sided enterprise; cultural theory as the new political theology; cultural theory as cultural theory; and cultural theory as the theory of abundance respectively. References. O. van Zijl

The meeting, which brought together a group of 30 international participants from different disciplines, organized by the Institute for Theology and Peace (ITHF), Alexander Leveringhaus (University of Oxford) and Bernhard Koch (ITHF). For two days they devoted themselves to one of the currently aktuelisten and controversial topics: the increasing use military robotics and the current and future ethical, legal and political implications of this development. Adapted from the source document.

This exploration of the essence of Carl Schmitt's characterization of the political discusses his concepts, which have, for 70 years, been the most divisive yet disarmingly realistic & comparatively unembellished treatise to this theme. Schmitt's political theory requires power that is strong enough to group men as friend of foe, where the differentiation of friend & foe is the core of politics, & encompasses any social, ethnic, or economic aspect of life that achieves sufficient intensity of polarity to achieve this distinction. Compromise, advocated by Hegel, obscures the distinction, raising issues over neutralization of foes, & having the effect of separating man from responsibility. Schmitt lies between the modern & the postmodern, where history is a central element, but the reality of fate & coincidence becomes a metaphor for the sovereignty of God. Karl Barth, a teacher of negative theology, provides insight to understanding Schmitt. L. Kehl