Suchergebnisse

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache

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.

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.

Religion & religious communities as active components of each social & cultural set & as major factors in its functioning may contribute to social processes & relations or affect them both integrationally & disintegrationally. The paper lays out the theoretical & methodological grounds (functionalism) for the analysis of these processes & relations. As the examples of the integrational influence on the social & political processes in Croatia following all the social & political changes, we can mention the activities of the Catholic church (particularly in the Diaspora) &, to a degree, those of the Pentecostal church, while the disintegrational influence was exemplified by the activities of the Serbian Orthodox church. The text also includes a comparative analysis of the empirical data obtained from two studies carried out in Croatia (based on several partial indicators), which indicate a marked turn towards religiosity. Highlighted are possible individual & social aspects of these changes as well as the need for a complex & systematic monitoring of the religious developments in Croatia, the results of which might point to the possible integrational or disintegrational potentials of this "new religiosity" within a broader social framework. 4 Tables, 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

Response, Henk te VeldeDuring my research I have greatly benefited from the historiography of political parties and I agree with Bosmans that the relatively new approach of political culture should collaborate with classic political history. However, I am more interested in similarities between different political currents and how they compare with the international scene. Another area of particular interest for me is the public aspect of political leadership and how this relates to the time in which it takes place. The issue is, therefore, not the party political aspects of Colijn's leadership but rather the praise he received at that time from outside his own party. The most prominent political leaders were not modest administrators but 'partisan', controversial members of the best-organised and strongest parties, such as the orthodox Protestant ARP. Among many other things, I analyse the relevance of clichés about 'Calvinist' and 'religious' politics with regard to the public appeal of ex-orthodox Protestant Den Uyl. Unfortunately, however, Van Deursen seems to believe, unjustly, that I am expressing my own personal opinion on Calvinism.

Wars & suffering in the 20th century, mostly the consequences of ethnic & religious antagonisms, have been typical for Europe's Southeast. That is why the ethnic aspects of security are central to an understanding of the totality of this region's security, particularly in the 21st century. The security of southeastern Europe can be analyzed using realistic, idealistic, & neo-realistic approaches to contemporary security as its starting point. The security of this region is affected by the internal circumstances of the region's states, particularly their economic situations & interethnic relations. Similarly, significant influence is exerted by the relations among the various states & nations, as well as by the ethnic-based conflicts that result from these relations. This part of Europe is likely to remain a volatile region, fraught with economic difficulties & crises, nationalisms, & xenophobia. In such circumstances, with the open sores of simmering ethnic feuds & the specter of various nationalisms, is it realistic to expect the rational politics needed to lead the countries of southeastern Europe toward a united Europe? The answer to this question is sought not only by this region's states but also by the leading European states & the US. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

The conflict in Northern Ireland, whose modern phase began in 1969, is highly complex, & it is impossible to unequivocally define it. On the one hand, it is an internal conflict with the elements of ethnic, religious, & civil strife, & on the other, this is a conflict with a critical international dimension. There have been various definitions of the conflict in Northern Ireland, but one thing is certain: this is undoubtedly one of the most prolonged & bloodiest conflicts in modern Europe, in which 3,600 people have lost their lives, & 47,000 have been injured. This conflict is an amalgam of past & present events, processes, & relations from aspects of four types of relationships: between the Catholics (nationalists/republicans) & the Protestants (unionists/loyalists) in Northern Ireland itself; the London-Belfast relationship; London-Dublin & Dublin-Belfast. The analysis of this conflict shows that from the perspective of conflict theory it is one of a kind. No such theory explains this conflict completely; as a matter of fact, the conflict in Northern Ireland is covered by elements of several conflict theories. The analysis also shows that the conflict in Northern Ireland can be solved only by political means. However, due to the complexity of this conflict it is not possible to reach a single solution that would satisfy the maximalist demands of all the parties. This conflict can be resolved by means of a political compromise that would create a framework for action of all the conflicting parties, the framework that would be an end in itself, ie, a way of life & not an instrument for the realization of the original (opposing) ultimate goals of those involved in the conflict. 3 Tables, 107 References. Adapted from the source document.