‘Obligatory Relegation’, ‘Willing Translation’, or ‘Unreserved Declaration’? The Place of Religious Ideas in Public Square Deliberation

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Edmung Fong
{"title":"‘Obligatory Relegation’, ‘Willing Translation’, or ‘Unreserved Declaration’? The Place of Religious Ideas in Public Square Deliberation","authors":"Edmung Fong","doi":"10.1163/15697320-20241576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper describes three basic positions that have been held in relation to the place of religious ideas and reasons in public square deliberation by outlining the arguments of major representatives of each position. The three positions are: ‘obligatory relegation’ (Robert Audi); ‘willing translation’ (John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas), and ‘unreserved declaration’ (Nicholas Wolterstorff and Charles Taylor). I conclude by offering an observation from the survey. Even as the question of the place of religious ideas in public square deliberation can be approached from either broader domains of the secularisation/post-secularisation of societies or the essence of liberal democracy, it is not the domain itself but rather specific conceptions of key ideas or notions within each domain that push the representatives to take the position that they do.</p>","PeriodicalId":43324,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15697320-20241576","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper describes three basic positions that have been held in relation to the place of religious ideas and reasons in public square deliberation by outlining the arguments of major representatives of each position. The three positions are: ‘obligatory relegation’ (Robert Audi); ‘willing translation’ (John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas), and ‘unreserved declaration’ (Nicholas Wolterstorff and Charles Taylor). I conclude by offering an observation from the survey. Even as the question of the place of religious ideas in public square deliberation can be approached from either broader domains of the secularisation/post-secularisation of societies or the essence of liberal democracy, it is not the domain itself but rather specific conceptions of key ideas or notions within each domain that push the representatives to take the position that they do.

强制降级"、"自愿翻译 "还是 "毫无保留的声明"?宗教思想在公共广场讨论中的地位
本文通过概述每种立场的主要代表的论点,阐述了在宗教思想和理由在公共广场讨论中的地位问题上所持的三种基本立场。这三种立场是强制性归还"(罗伯特-奥迪)、"自愿翻译"(约翰-罗尔斯和于尔根-哈贝马斯)和 "无保留声明"(尼古拉斯-沃尔特斯托夫和查尔斯-泰勒)。最后,我想提出调查中的一个观点。尽管宗教思想在公共广场讨论中的地位问题可以从社会世俗化/后世俗化或自由民主的本质这两个更广泛的领域来探讨,但推动代表们采取这种立场的并不是领域本身,而是每个领域中对关键思想或概念的具体概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
50.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信