Suchergebnisse

WOS:000427063500023 ; This is not the first time that I have responded to a – brilliant – collection of papers somehow prompted or provoked (I dare not say inspired) by work of my own. I did so first in a volume that arose from a Cambridge seminar convened to mark my retirement in 2014 from my post as the inaugural A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture in the Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge: Allen et al. 2018. ('Allen et al. 2018' is just one of the titles listed in the Appendix to this Response. This contains a selection of relevant titles published in or after 2016 that could not be properly discussed or even in many cases cited in the following Response itself. The list is as long as it is, in part because my 'life' of democracy includes 'modern' and 'contemporary' as well as 'ancient' democracy, in part because it includes important works cited by my respondents, but in even more telling part because of the state of 'democracy,' globally speaking, in recent and current times, or rather thanks to the (generally parlous) state we're in.)

Usturali, Adil/0000-0001-9115-2162 ; WOS:000402454300004 ; This article argues that Habermas's position on the relationship between religion and politics reaffirms his two-track political theory of the secular state and civic duty. His hard-core theory of secularism coupled with an ethics of citizenship seeks new ways of including religious citizens in modern pluralistic societies. The analysis of secularism both as a concept and as a guiding principle in Habermas's work shows that most critics have misinterpreted his specific use of the term. The result of this is that most secularist and accommodationist critics of Habermas's ethics of citizenship disregard his two-track political theory and its co-originality principle that assumes the equal status of public and private autonomies of citizens. My aim is thus to shift critical attention to the central aspects of Habermas's work on religion, specifically to the task of translating religious reasons into an all-accessible language. This task of translation faces several difficulties due to some points that are left unclear by Habermas, such as determining the line separating the informal and the formal spheres, and how to avert the risk of majoritarian hijacks of democracy that could altogether undermine the Habermasian framework.