Suchergebnisse

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

A. Farazmand identifies three approaches towards relationship between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary academic discussion. The first approach holds the idea of total control of bureaucracy by elected politicians. The second approach rejects dichotomy of politics-administration, and speaks for the twofold role of bureaucracy, both political and administrative. The third approach treats the high level bureaucrats as possessing certain autonomy vis-à-vis politicians. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that already the early researchers of relationship between politicians and bureaucrats provided different explanation of their roles. In order to ensure effectiveness of public administration, W. Wilson separated administration and politics. M. Weber showed the dark side of administrative effectiveness – bureaucratization of public life, which can be controlled only by charismatic political leadership. J. Schumpeter pointed to the negative side of competition among such charismatic leaders, that is, decrease of administrative effectiveness. Therefore, he claimed that democratic government has to rely upon professional bureaucracy, which is sufficiently strong and independent. The article proposes a twofold explanation of these divergent approaches. First, it can be explained by variety of parliamentary systems, which is determined by differing executive-legislative linkage. On of the extreme cases of such linkage is premiership of cabinet system, where the executive power dominates vis-à-vis parliament. Such case could explain the approach (by M. Weber), according to which charismatic political leaders, who proved their capabilities during the party competition, could and should rule the systems of bureaucratic administration. Another extreme case – the French type assembly government – could explain the approach (by J. Schumpeter) that bureaucracy should be strong and independent, which could advice or even prescribe politicians, engaged into competition, which forces to care not about the effectiveness of state administration but the political value of administrative decisions. Second, the explanation of different approaches concerning the role of politicians and bureaucrats may by related to the fact that societies seek to have both politically responsive and professionally responsible bureaucracy. The aim of politically responsive bureaucracy rests on the understanding of the importance of political leadership in liberal democracies and its relationship with the state bureaucracy. This aim is expressed by M. Weber. Another aim comes from the understanding that implementation of public policy, formulated by politicians, depends on the professionalism of bureaucracy and its responsibility. This aim is articulated by J. Schumpeter.

A. Farazmand identifies three approaches towards relationship between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary academic discussion. The first approach holds the idea of total control of bureaucracy by elected politicians. The second approach rejects dichotomy of politics-administration, and speaks for the twofold role of bureaucracy, both political and administrative. The third approach treats the high level bureaucrats as possessing certain autonomy vis-à-vis politicians. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that already the early researchers of relationship between politicians and bureaucrats provided different explanation of their roles. In order to ensure effectiveness of public administration, W. Wilson separated administration and politics. M. Weber showed the dark side of administrative effectiveness – bureaucratization of public life, which can be controlled only by charismatic political leadership. J. Schumpeter pointed to the negative side of competition among such charismatic leaders, that is, decrease of administrative effectiveness. Therefore, he claimed that democratic government has to rely upon professional bureaucracy, which is sufficiently strong and independent. The article proposes a twofold explanation of these divergent approaches. First, it can be explained by variety of parliamentary systems, which is determined by differing executive-legislative linkage. On of the extreme cases of such linkage is premiership of cabinet system, where the executive power dominates vis-à-vis parliament. Such case could explain the approach (by M. Weber), according to which charismatic political leaders, who proved their capabilities during the party competition, could and should rule the systems of bureaucratic administration. Another extreme case – the French type assembly government – could explain the approach (by J. Schumpeter) that bureaucracy should be strong and independent, which could advice or even prescribe politicians, engaged into competition, which forces to care not about the effectiveness of state administration but the political value of administrative decisions. Second, the explanation of different approaches concerning the role of politicians and bureaucrats may by related to the fact that societies seek to have both politically responsive and professionally responsible bureaucracy. The aim of politically responsive bureaucracy rests on the understanding of the importance of political leadership in liberal democracies and its relationship with the state bureaucracy. This aim is expressed by M. Weber. Another aim comes from the understanding that implementation of public policy, formulated by politicians, depends on the professionalism of bureaucracy and its responsibility. This aim is articulated by J. Schumpeter.

A. Farazmand identifies three approaches towards relationship between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary academic discussion. The first approach holds the idea of total control of bureaucracy by elected politicians. The second approach rejects dichotomy of politics-administration, and speaks for the twofold role of bureaucracy, both political and administrative. The third approach treats the high level bureaucrats as possessing certain autonomy vis-à-vis politicians. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that already the early researchers of relationship between politicians and bureaucrats provided different explanation of their roles. In order to ensure effectiveness of public administration, W. Wilson separated administration and politics. M. Weber showed the dark side of administrative effectiveness – bureaucratization of public life, which can be controlled only by charismatic political leadership. J. Schumpeter pointed to the negative side of competition among such charismatic leaders, that is, decrease of administrative effectiveness. Therefore, he claimed that democratic government has to rely upon professional bureaucracy, which is sufficiently strong and independent. The article proposes a twofold explanation of these divergent approaches. First, it can be explained by variety of parliamentary systems, which is determined by differing executive-legislative linkage. On of the extreme cases of such linkage is premiership of cabinet system, where the executive power dominates vis-à-vis parliament. Such case could explain the approach (by M. Weber), according to which charismatic political leaders, who proved their capabilities during the party competition, could and should rule the systems of bureaucratic administration. Another extreme case – the French type assembly government – could explain the approach (by J. Schumpeter) that bureaucracy should be strong and independent, which could advice or even prescribe politicians, engaged into competition, which forces to care not about the effectiveness of state administration but the political value of administrative decisions. Second, the explanation of different approaches concerning the role of politicians and bureaucrats may by related to the fact that societies seek to have both politically responsive and professionally responsible bureaucracy. The aim of politically responsive bureaucracy rests on the understanding of the importance of political leadership in liberal democracies and its relationship with the state bureaucracy. This aim is expressed by M. Weber. Another aim comes from the understanding that implementation of public policy, formulated by politicians, depends on the professionalism of bureaucracy and its responsibility. This aim is articulated by J. Schumpeter.