Suchergebnisse

Hegelove riječi iz Enciklopedije filozofskih znanosti, da revolucija nije moguća bez reformacije, mogu se shvatiti kao načelno upozorenje da svakoj korjenitoj političkoj promjeni mora prethoditi promjena u unutrašnjem svijetu uvjerenja pojedinca i zajednice. Te riječi povijesno preciznije upućuju na reformirano kršćanstvo kao na inherentni poticaj modernim revolucionarnim previranjima. Religiozno oslobođenje savjesti prethodilo je političkom oslobođenju i u tom smislu Hegel izdvaja protestantizam kao najviši lik religioznosti koji je u modernoj običajnosti moguć. Hegel favorizira protestantizam ne samo zato što je uvjeren da je religijska reformacija prethodila i da uvijek mora prethoditi revoluciji nego i zbog toga što smatra da s protestantizmom postaje očito da i reformiranje religije ostaje nedovršeno i apstraktno ne preraste li u politički prevrat. Razmatranje načina na koji Hegel problematizira odnos države i religije autora vodi k zaključku: revolucije ne može biti bez reformacije, ali ni istinske reformacije bez revolucije. ; Hegel's words from the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, that a revolution is not possible without a reformation, can be understood as the general warning that the change within the inner world of beliefs of individual and community must precede every radical political change. Historically more precise, these words point to the Reformed Christianity as the inherent impetus to the modern revolutionary movements. The religious liberation of conscience preceded the political liberation, and Hegel, therefore, points out Protestantism as the highest form of religiosity which is possible in the modern ethical life. On the other hand, Hegel favours Protestantism not only because he is convinced that the religious reformation preceded and must precede the revolution, but also because he considers that with Protestantism becomes evident that the reformation of religion remains incomplete and abstract if it does not grow into the political upheaval. Considering the way Hegel is problematizing the nature of the relationship between state and religion, the author concludes: there can be no revolution without a reformation, but neither a true reformation without a revolution.

The logic of civil religion consists of minimizing community in order to maximize pluralism. Every modern society needs pluralism on the one hand, and securing of its foundations on the other. Still, civil religion may raise suspicion with regard to use of religion for political purposes. And instrumentalization is contradictory to the character of religion, although the latter always has political consequences as well. Civil religion serves politics with the aim of educating citizens. Perhaps, however, it can also be perceived as preparation of totalitarian beliefs and liturgies, such as are known to us from the first half of the 20th century. Civil religion can go hand in hand with excessive nationalism, proselytism, and Satanization of enemies. Such undesirable consequences of civil religion are discussed in this article on the basis of examples from the time of the French Revolution. The Revolution was largely marked by civil religion, the former even legitimized the latter. Four examples from the history of the French Revolution are analyzed: human rights as civil religion; cult of reason and of the supreme being; worship of the Revolution's "martyr" Jean-Paul Marat, and, finally, Satanization of enemies. Following his expose, the author confronts these questions: Is the confusing element of civil religion the fact that it wants to utilize religion per se for political purposes? What is it that protects civil religion from degenerating into nationalism and proselytism? Or else civil religion can be both: the basis of a tolerant pluralist democracy as well as the preparatory stage of totalitarianism? Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the relation between politics, state and religion from the political-science perspective, as part of an analysis and evaluation of tasks, achievements and failures of polity, policy or politics from the standpoint of normative-constructive philosophy of equity. At present the central task of policy is to stimulate and strengthen the Western political culture based on the fundamental distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" pluralism. "Reasonable" pluralism rests on the assumption that the state is a just power, the sovereignty of which can be recognized in distinguishing the "public" and the "private", the just and the good, and, in connection therewith, it is almost self-understandable that such a liberal guaranteed private sphere must be the primary arena of religious practice and religious freedoms. The crucial trait of the relation between state and religion is manifest in the fact that only the legal state and the liberal constitution are competent to state what the freedom of individuals consists of within the framework of norms of what is just. The author defines "religion" in the comprehensive sense as central to the processes of forming cultural identity, and he deems that cultural policy (which, in principle, has to do with relations between state and religion), as policy of equitable integration of multi-culturally shaped political unities, must be oriented toward stimulation of those attitudes and values which make possible the reasonable pluralism defined according to Rawls. Since the political encompasses also the possibility to make enemies, the author advocates the cultural policy of "weakening the feelings of enmity" (N. Elias). In this way, a systematic concept of policy would be created, one which would reflect and preserve the conditions of reasonable pluralism. On the policy level and, in particular, on the politics level, cultural policy is a very demanding project. Perhaps it is precisely Switzerland, with its special prospects of civil democracy, that offers promising cultural-policy opportunities for activity, which are as yet still insufficiently researched. Adapted from the source document.