PUBLIC PROCEDURE, RELIGION AND PUBLIC SPHERE UNDER DEBATE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article intends to present some limits of the public procedure of religious groups, according to Jurgen Habermas' evaluation. It begins with the perception that worldviews based on faith impose, or have imposed, a series of difficulties for the establishment of a plural and democratic order in contemporary secular societies. In methodological terms, the intention is to focus on the discussion of more recent works of the Habermasian writings (2006, 2007, 2010, 2012), evaluating and discussing essential concepts of its reflection on the place of religion in the public sphere. In attempt to clarify the limits of religious procedures in democratic societies, it is necessary to emphasize, as a conclusion, the insufficiency of the neutral state
principle defended by Habermas.
Downloads
Article Details
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors will retain the copyright and grants to the journal the right of the first publication, with simultaneous license to the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this publication.
- Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on your personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and citation published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
ARAÚJO, Luiz. B. L. Religião e modernidade em Habermas. São Paulo: Loyola, 1996.
HABERMAS, Jurgen. Discurso filosófico da modernidade. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2000.
_______. Direito e democracia: entre facticidade e validade. 2.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 1997.
________. Fé e Saber. São Paulo: Ed. Unesp, 2012.
_______. Teoria do agir comunicativo. São Paulo, SP: WMF Martins Fontes, 2012b. 2 v.
_______. Mudança estrutural da esfera pública. São Paulo: Ed. Unesp, 2014.
_______. Entre naturalismo e religión. Barcelona: Paidós, 2006.
_______. “The Political – the Rational meaning of a questionable inheritance of Political Theology”. In.: The power of religion in the public sphere. Eds.: MENDIETTA, E.; VANATWERPEN, Jonathan; CALHOUN, Craig. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
_______ & RATZINGER, J. Dialética da secularização: sobre razão e religião. Aparecida: Ideias & Letras, 2007.
_______. Pensamento pós-metafísico. Rio de Janeiro: Biblioteca Tempo Universitário, 2002.
_______. O futuro da natureza humana: a caminho de uma eugenia liberal? São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2010.