This article raises questions related to the political interpretation of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. It is demonstrated that Solzhenitsyn's work in this aspect can be described as a political and philosophical legitimation of the project of "conservative modernity". The main plot dominant in Solzhenitsyn's reflections is the political and philosophical criticism of Western secularism and its political consequences. Secularism is described by Solzhenitsyn as a "perversion" of the Christian idea, in this respect Bolshevism and Western liberalism are equated with each other, embodying the radical features of the Western modernist project. The main question that worries Solzhenitsyn: how is modernity possible, in which the basic Christian principles and rules are preserved and developed? The solution to this issue is connected with the political implementation of this project - the construction of a conservative version of democracy, in which the observance of human rights and the construction of a rule of law state is based on Christian, not secular values.
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)
The article deals with the work of one of the most outstanding representative of modern Muslim reformation but still has not been thoroughly studied in our country, Egyptian sheikh Ali Abdarraziq (1888-1966), the author of a famous book "Islam and the Foundations of Political Power" (1925). He was the fi rst Muslim theologian who evoked the idea of desacralization of caliphate and argumented the statement that Divine Law, in its essence, has nothing to do with the organization of political power.In the first part the personality of Ali Abdarraziq is presented in the historical context, with a focus on a pressing struggle for the restauration of Caliphate abolishedin 1924 due to Kemalist reforms. Against this restauration, namely, Abdarraziq directed his book. Here is analyzed the sharp discussion raised by the book in wide circles of Egyptian society, its critics and court trial organized by the ulemas of al-Azhar.The work of Abdarraziq is to become the most disputable since the times of book-printing in the Arab countries. It infl uenced greatly the following Muslim thought and till now acts a so-called guiding star for the modernists-secularists in all the Islamic world. ; Данная статья посвящена одной из наиболее ярких, но мало изученных в нашей стране фигур современного мусульманского модернизма — египетскому шейху Али Абдарразику (1888–1966), автору книги «Ислам и принципы правления» (1925). Он первым из мусульманских богословов выступил за десакрализацию халифата, обосновав положение о том, что по своей сущности Божественный закон/шариат не имеет отношения к организации политической власти.В первой части статьи освещаются исторические события, послужившие причиной появления на свет книга Абдарразика. Главным образом это движение за реставрацию халифата, которое возникло после его отмены в 1924 г. в Турции в результате кемалистских реформ и против которого, собственно, и была направлена книга богослова. Исследуются дискуссия вокруг книги, ее критика и судебный процесс над автором, организованный улемами ал-Азхара.Сочинению Абдарразика суждено было стать самым дискутируемым со времен книгопечатания в арабских странах. Оно оказало мощное влияние на последующую мусульманскую мысль, выступая в качестве своего рода путеводной звезды для модернистов-секуляристов во всем исламском мире.
Dignitatis humanae, the declaration of Vatican ii on religious freedom, represents an important step in the Church's presentation of human freedom as expressed also in the political arena. By enshrining conscience and religious freedom as supreme, Dignitatis humanae completes the reflection of Gaudium et spes on the Church in the modern world. It establishes Christianity as a religion of the Logos and so of dialogue and free inquiry. In today's era of globalization and ever more multiethnic societies, Dignitatis humanae contributes to renewing the role of religions in the public sphere and to elaborating the broader notions of religion in relation with secularity. ; La declaración sobre la libertad religiosa, Dignitatis humanae, representa un paso importante tanto en la presentación de la libertad humana dentro de la Iglesia como en el campo político. Al consagrar la conciencia y la libertad religiosa como un bien supremo, Dignitatis humanae completa la reflexión de Gaudium et spes sobre la Iglesia en el mundo moderno. Se establece el cristianismo como una religión del Logos, del diálogo y de la búsqueda. En la actual era de la globalización y de sociedades cada vez más multiétnicas, Dignitatis humanae contribuye a renovar el papel de las religiones en la esfera pública y a elaborar conceptos más amplios de la religión en relación a la laicidad.
The paper begins displaying the main stages of the historical process that has led to the definitive distinction between religious authority and civil authority in Europe. After identifying the foundation of politics in the freedom of the Church; and the foundation of the State in religious freedom; the Author comes to two conclusions: the first is that Christianity played a key role in the birth and development of secularization. The second, which in his opinion deserves to be clarified and put to the test of the times, consists in the claim of relegating State and politics in the narrow limits of worldliness. The claim of excluding that State and politics have spiritual implications. He therefore intends to test the idea that the liberal state of law could resist, at the expense of the many lacerations that fragment its social body, without the help of principles and values which it could not justify. Considering the problem under this particular perspective, it is clear that two concepts that characterize the European tradition, such as the principle of tolerance and an "healthy secularism", could represent the keystone that allows us to overcome the implicit contradictions and the unresolved tensions which still cross our post-modern and secular society.
The aim of this essay is to examine the connection between contemporary debates on political secularism and institutional arrangements between State and religions on one hand, and, on the other, on secularization theory and its latest 'rebirth': postsecularism. Analysing the link between the theories and concept of postsecular society and the debate on political secularism and its institutional forms and practices allows to understand the multidimensionality of the latter in its very latest theorisations and realizations.
It seems to take growing root in the West a certain idea of marriage, which appears to descend from the French secularism model, in being "counter-traditional", respectful of the individual autonomy, and devoted to an "integral" application of the principle of equality. The proof is that it putted down roots in legal contexts poles apart from the above model, for their way to set the space and the relevance of religion in the public sphere. The study examines the emblematic English case, where this notion has led to the introduction of "same-sex marriage", without the peculiar framework of the relations between the State and his national Church, with his singular legal tecnical implications (the "ecclesiastical law" as integral part of the general law of England; the "constitutional" principle for which the canon law cannot be contrary to the latter; the correspondence – until then – between "anglican marriage" and the civil one; the clergy's duty to solemnise the marriage of all the residents in the Country irrespective of the couple's religious beliefs or lack of them) have rapresented a barrier or a scruple. The goal of the paper is, on one hand, focusing the political and legal reasons that underlie this outcome, and, on the other hand, look into the impact that the latter has resulted on the Church of England's legal system, its legally relevant reactions, and the adopted "style of presence", also as a "benchmark" for the more comprehensive anglican world.
