The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.
The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.
The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.
The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.
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).
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.
Based on analysis of condition of different confessions, the religious situation in occupied Donbass is researched. It turns out that religious policy in self-proclaimed republics is heading towards, on one side, to consolidation of Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate, but on the other side, to crowding outof other religions from occupied territories. Through the help of Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate the idea of the so-called "Russian World" is implemented among different categories of population. Russian Ortho- dox Church was involved into Donbass conflict and its head, Patriarch Cyril. By hiding Russian aggression in Ukraine, he is trying to picture it as "civil conflict". Pro-Russian positionas to the Donbas developments is also taken by a part of bishops of Ukrainian Orthodox Church clergy. It reinforced negative attitude of Ukrainian population and lead to acceleration of the transition of religious communities under the author- ity of the Kyiv Patriarchate. Attempts of the orthodox religious communities to change their inferiority are related to the reinforcement of their Pro-Ukrainian positions. It is stated that in occupied Donbass territo- ries, Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church turned out to be in a complicated situation. Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Protestant religious organizations. Considering a difficult state of faithful Catholics in the breakaway republic, Vatican, the Pope provides them material aid and spiritual support. Since the policy of «DNR» and «LNR» is aimed at complete eradication of "sects" of Donbas, the actions of the occupation authorities significantly affected Protestant believers. Due to organizational frag- mentation,in occupied territories of Donbassfaithful Muslimsfailed to develop a common political position. The article states that harassment and persecution of various religious organizations, clergymen, leaving their followers to safe areas in the occupied territories of Donbass greatly diminished religious network, the number of communities, churches occupancy. The normalization of religious and church life in the region is inextricably linked with the cessation of armed conflict and its de-occupation. ; На основі аналізу становища різних конфесій досліджується релігійна ситуація на окупованих територіях Донбасу. Показується, що релігійна політика в самопроголошених республіках спрямована на утвердження православ'я Московського патріархату, утиски і переслідування інших релігій, які перебувають на проукраїнських позиціях, витіснення їх з контрольованих сепаратистами територій. Нормалізація релігійно-церковного життя в цьому регіоні пов'язується з припиненням військового конфлікту і деокупацією захоплених територій на сході України.
Introduction. The analysis of new religious movements (NRMs), identification of the defects in the religious typology and classification of native faith as "neo-religion" are conducted by the author. The research shows the diversity of the followers purposes' of traditional and new religious movements and their ideological systems (national – international), reveals the opposites of these religions in terms of the world and God/Gods (natural – artificial; mythological – historical, polytheism – monotheism, immanence – transcendence), etc., which enabled the author to find out the criteria for religious classifications. Purpose. The purpose of the article is to clear up the basic principles of theology, ideals, and ideologies of New Age and native faith of the Slavs, to determine their fundamental opposition. It's logically motivated the fallacy of classification the native faith to "neo-paganism" as a segment of NRMs. Results. It is concluded that native faith was and still is a traditional autochthonous natural religion of the Ukrainians, which has long existed in hidden forms in parallel with the official Christianity. Only in a democratic society it has been given the possibility of its revival as officially recognized ethno-religious (national) confession. On the example of the creation of NRM, the author states the use of the methods of manipulation with human consciousness that have the features of "religious weapons" as one of the tools of information war. Originality and conclusion. There is an urgent need for state's awareness of the fact of total world informational war to create its own self-protective philosophy of antiglobalism. So in this philosophy a significant importance will be given to scientific developments of native faith and ideology of national self-preservation to prevent the foreign intervention in autochthonous spiritual culture.
The phenomenon of religion in public space is nowadays complemented by symbolic and informational factors that, through certain mechanisms, play a significant role in political processes. This is related to the formation of the political identity of the nation, in which the religious component becomes a certain marker that splits or unites society. Even though politics and religion have their own public fields, there is a struggle for influence and expansion of their public field between politics and religion in most European countries of the East. With the aim to engage citizens in the discourse of political or religious, the political and ecclesiastical elite mentally forces individuals to balance on the verge of the political and religious and turns them into participants of political processes. At least, exactly this takes place in the modern history of Ukraine. The loss of state territories and military events in the East have given rise to the Ukrainian discourse of Tomos, which, through the context of the war, established a new marker of Ukrainian identity. Perceiving public religion as a field for public dissent, Ukrainian society has found itself in internal and external confrontation: between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and the official policy of the power during Petro Poroshenko's presidency – the level of the conflict was "power-church"; internal conflict between Ukrainian Orthodox denominations when, due to the signed Tomos, they united to form a unified Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) – the level of the conflict was "churchchurch"; between the official policy of Russia, which supports the activities of the UOC-MP and is recognized by official Ukrainian authorities as the military aggressor of Ukraine (mostly during P. Poroshenko's presidency and less during V. Zelensky's presidency) – the level of the conflict is "power-power". The discourse of Tomos in Ukraine has provoked not only interconfessional and political confrontation. It influenced confidence in the church as a moral institute because, on the one hand, we've had a "church of the aggressor state" (UOC-MP) and an "illegal church" (OCU), and on the other hand, there were "Orthodox" and "schismatics". This has mentally widened the gap between the East and the West of Ukraine. An analysis held based on data from the Razumkov Center, official statistics of religious organizations in Ukraine, as well as judicial acts, testifies that this gap is formed along a territorial line. Therefore, S. Huntington's theory of a global policy developed along the cultural line finds support. ; Формування політичної ідентичності нації, де релігійна складова стає певним маркером, за яким відбувається розмежування або об'єднання суспільства, багато в чому пов'язано з публічним простором. Не зважаючи на те, що політика та релігія мають власні публічні поля, у більшості європейських країн Сходу відбувається боротьба за вплив та розширення власного публічного поля між політикою та релігією. З метою залучення громадян у дискурс політичного та релігійного, політична та церковна еліти ментально змушують суб'єкта балансувати на кордоні політичного та релігійного й перетворюють його на учасника власних політичних процесів. Втрата територій, військові події на Сході країни та президентські вибори 2019 р. створили український дискурс Томосу, який через контекст війни встановив новий маркер української ідентичності. Українське суспільство опинилося на лінії трьох протистоянь: 1) між Українською православною церквою (Московського патріархату) (на сьогодні УПЦ) та офіційною політикою влади часів президента Петра Порошенка – рівень конфлікту «владацерква»; 2) внутрішній конфлікт між українськими православними конфесіями, коли постало питання створення єдиної православної церкви України (ПЦУ) завдяки отриманню Томосу – рівень конфлікту «церква-церква»; 3) між офіційною політикою Росії, яка підтримує діяльність УПЦ (МП) й визнана військовим агресором України та офіційною зовнішньою політикою української влади (у більшості часів П. Порошенка та у меншості В. Зеленського) – рівень конфлікту «влада-влада». Дискурс Томосу в Україні спричинив не тільки міжконфесійне та політичне протистояння. Він підняв питання публічної релігії в умовах релігійних протистоянь. Аналіз інформації, що було проведено у 2020 році на основі даних Центру Разумкова, офіційної статистики релігійних організацій в Україні (на 2020 рік), а також судових актів, свідчить про територіальну лінію розлому, яка представлена у цій статті у вигляді карти України. Що підкріплює теорію С. Гантінгтона про глобальну політику, яка вибудовується за культурною лінією розколу.
