Suchergebnisse

Riconoscere che i concetti di laicità e secolarismo possiedono un'origine e uno sviluppo condizionato dalla cultura occidentale e dal cristianesimo significa prendere in considerazione l'eventualità di un ripensamento della distinzione tra ordine politico, religione e diritto nelle democrazie multiculturali e multireligiose. L'obiettivo di questo lavoro è mettere in discussione una concezione neutralista del secolarismo, alla cui base vi è il convincimento per cui l'esclusione dell'elemento religioso dalla sfera pubblica e normativa sono garanzia di eguaglianza in un contesto caratterizzato dal 'fatto del pluralismo'. Pertanto abbiamo analizzato il pensiero di due fra i più influenti filosofi politici, John Rawls e Jürgen Habermas, portavoci di una visione neutralista del secolarismo, e le critiche a essi rivolte da alcuni teorici del multiculturalismo – Bikhu Parekh e Tariq Modood –, che propongono, invece, l'abbandono della retorica della neutralità nella costruzione della sfera politica e normativa. Di conseguenza questi ultimi si rivolgono con maggiore apertura rispetto alle richieste provenienti dagli individui appartenenti a minoranze religiose e culturali, senza respingerle sulla base della loro natura culturale o religiosa. Al contrario, in particolare quando tali richieste di riconoscimento riguardano aree rilevanti della vita degli individui, come possono essere la famiglia, il matrimonio, le questioni ereditarie ecc., ossia aree in cui la natura culturalmente condizionata di alcune istituzioni è maggiormente visibile, viene presa qui in considerazione la possibilità che esse possano essere regolate e gestite in maniera differente. A tal proposito si è approfondita la proposta di far fronte a queste richieste attraverso l'adozione di sistemi di pluralismo normativo, con una particolare attenzione a un esperimento avviato in Gran Bretagna, che prevede per le comunità religiose la possibilità del risolvere le proprie controversie in materia di diritto di famiglia in tribunali arbitrali religiosi, che tuttavia operano sotto il controllo indiretto delle corti inglesi. La descrizione di questo caso è stata finalizzata a mettere in luce la necessità di ricercare nuovi strumenti coerenti con la visione del secolarismo che abbiamo cercato di proporre, ossia di una laicità che di fronte alle nuove istanze presenti nei contesti culturalmente e religiosamente plurali, piuttosto che arroccarsi dietro la convinzione che si possa garantire uguaglianza solo se si dà una sfera pubblica e normativa neutrale e che vi sia una soluzione razionale ai conflitti tra valori, tenta di accogliere la diversità nei suoi propri termini, andando alla ricerca di nuovi strumenti teorico-politici. Infatti, i canali di partecipazione attraverso i quali i sistemi democratici hanno cercato d'integrare la diversità non sembrano riuscire a far fronte alle richieste provenienti da individui che non si riconoscono a pieno titolo nella cultura della maggioranza. Ciò significa pensare a nuove strategie d'inclusione – di cui il pluralismo normativo può essere un esempio –, se si vogliono garantire proprio quei presupposti di valore che la democrazia promuove, ossia il pluralismo e l'eguale libertà di tutti i cittadini. ; If we recognize that the concept of secularism originates and develops from the influence of Western culture and Christianity, we must take into account the possibility to rethink the distinction between politics, religion and law in multicultural and multireligious democracies. The aim of this work is to question the neutralist conception of secularism, which is characterized by the belief that the exclusion of religious elements from public sphere and legislation to guarantee of equality in a context characterized by religious pluralism. At this aim, I analyze the thought of two of the most influential political philosophers, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, who represent the neutralist view of secularism, as well as the criticism addressed to them by multiculturalist theorists – Bhikhu Parekh and Tariq Modood –, who suggest giving up the abandon of the rhetoric of neutrality in the construction of the political sphere and regulations, to pay more attention to the demands coming from individuals belonging to religious and cultural minorities. Indeed, particularly when these issues involve significant areas where the culturally conditioned nature of some institutions is more visible – family, marriage, hereditary issues – the possibility that they can be regulated in a different way is also taken into account. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the proposal is given to adopt a system of legal pluralism, with a special attention to an experiment started in the UK, which provides religious communities the possibility to go to religious arbitration tribunals, operating under the indirect control of the English courts, related to family law. The description of this case aims at emphasizing the need to seek for new consistent means with the idea of secularism I have tried to suggest. Such a secularism is based upon the belief that only a neutral public sphere and legislation can guarantee equality, but tries to embrace diversity and to suggest new political theories. As matter of fact, the channels of participation through which democratic systems have tried to integrate diversity do not seem to be able to face the requests from individuals who do not fully identify into the majority culture, which means thinking about new strategies of inclusion – for example legal pluralism – so to ensure the very value assumptions promoted by democracy, that is to say pluralism and equal liberty. ; Dottorato di ricerca in Relazioni e processi interculturali (XXV ciclo)

Islam and secularism; Islam and state

The author aims to present the etymology and history of the laicity principle as an important part of the political history of the West, particularly of France. The laicity idea has a very important place in the context of church-state relations, of separation of the two, and of their cooperation in certain areas (in models of cooperation). Since the concepts of laicity, secularism, secularisation and laicisation are often used in such a way as to make clear distinction impossible, an outline of their fundamental distinctions and an elucidation of possible ways of their use in political science seem to be fully justified. With regard to their etymological origins (Greek, Latin and French sources), the above-mentioned concepts are part of the common European tradition of establishing relations between the church and the state, relying on foundations which have demonstrated, in the course of history, their importance and various political applications. Adapted from the source document.

The author designates the Croatian thinker Juraj Krizanic as a philosopher of politics, i.e. a modern political theorist who, on the one hand, founds his postulates on traditional theological thought, and, on the other, takes into account the postulates of modern political theory. As a theologian, Krizanic bases his conception of history and theology on the providentialism of St. Aurelius Augustine, and his political theory on the acceptance of a part of the thought of his contemporary Thomas Hobbes. The theoretical position -- political theology, positions him precisely between the political-theological postulates of Augustine and the political-theoretical hypotheses of Hobbes. In agreement with Augustine, Kriznic concludes that the political community (state) has its foundation in God and the values comprised in him, which is especially manifest in Providence and royal worship as basis of the internal structure of the state. But, in agreement with Hobbes, Krizanic understands that the mission of the state decreed by Providence operates within the earthly state and the secular political frameworks, and that, on the other hand, the king instituted by the will of God has his foundation also in the political body (the people), and this ranks Krizanic among the modern political theorists. Adapted from the source document.

Although our talk about human rights is part of the ethical awareness of contemporary politics, it still has not received adequate theoretical justification & foundation. Serious philosophical problems arose in the very beginning of the history of the "human rights" concept, with Locke's liberal natural right & Kant's reasonable right. According to the author, the difficulty stems from the concept of person, for in every liberal legal theory the person is perceived as bearer of human & fundamental rights. Meanwhile, the dominant constitutional theory of human & fundamental rights starts from the identical meanings of "person" as an individual, in its uniqueness, & of "man" as a general definition. It is, however, necessary to start from the fundamental difference between the two key concepts. While the "man" concept is defined universalistically, there is no universal concept for persons & no possibility of breaking them down into subcategories. While every individual, as instance of the concept, must be defined in the same way as everyone else, persons are defined individualistically; each person is a unique individual which can be neither duplicated nor multiplied. The author proposes a solution of the fundamental rights problem-matter within the framework of constitutional law. Personal rights are brought to existence as follows: organs of the state, in accordance with positive law, give to the individual the title of state-citizen as an individualistically unique legal person. Everyone receives it, in the same way, as a unique & irreplaceable person. In the normal conditions, the state has the obligation to make sure, via courts & the police, that everyone's personal right is untouchable. On the basis of this logic, a demarcation line can be drawn between the personal fundamental rights & the collective rights of citizens (such as political rights, which the individual can practice only together with others). Only such an interpretation would provide our libertarian fundamental rights with a consistently secular character, with no concession to the internal attachment, in whichever way it may be concealed, to metaphysical or religious presuppositions. Adapted from the source document.

Liberalism; secularism; Egypt; politics and government; history; 1900-1950