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

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION International Journal of Public Theology Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1163/15697320-20241576
Edmung Fong
{"title":"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","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":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Obligatory Relegation’, ‘Willing Translation’, or ‘Unreserved Declaration’? The Place of Religious Ideas in Public Square Deliberation

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
50.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
On Critiquing Christian Nationalism: Two Recent Books on the Perils of Christian Nationalism Intersex and Medical Health: a Construction of a Public Health Theology Paradigm for Sexual Polymorphism in Indonesia Beyond the Shadows: a Public Theology of Disability Inclusion Triangulated Challenges to Democracy: a Critical Voice of Public Theology to Counter Fear and Escalating Polarization in Indonesia Binding Citizenship as a Bridge between Communities and Institutions: Dialogues between Christian Social Ethics, Political Philosophy and Social Sciences
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1