Behind the Mask of the Secular

Jürgen Habermas, who popularized the concept of the “post-secular,” advocates that all citizens should be free to decide whether they want to use religious language in the public sphere. However, he adds the proviso that citizens who do so must accept that religious utterances ought to be translated...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Sumika, Masayoshi (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Brill 2016
Dans: Journal of Religion in Japan
Année: 2016, Volume: 5, Numéro: 2/3, Pages: 153-175
Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés:B Habermas, Jürgen 1929- / Japan / Langage religieux / Sécularisation / Postsécularisme
RelBib Classification:AB Philosophie de la religion
AD Sociologie des religions
BN Shintoïsme
KBM Asie
NCC Éthique sociale
NCD Éthique et politique
XA Droit
Sujets non-standardisés:B Jürgen Habermas institutional translation proviso secularization separation of religion and state Japanese court cases on religion
Accès en ligne: Volltext (Verlag)
Description
Résumé:Jürgen Habermas, who popularized the concept of the “post-secular,” advocates that all citizens should be free to decide whether they want to use religious language in the public sphere. However, he adds the proviso that citizens who do so must accept that religious utterances ought to be translated into generally accessible language. Habermas presents this concept of “translation”—or the institutional translation proviso—as a way of bringing religious citizens into the public sphere. In his opinion, the public sphere and/or public institutions should not be open to any movement that tries to legitimize the nation on religious grounds. This paper shows that we can find logic and rhetoric that correspond to Habermas’s proviso in courtroom arguments over religion in Japan after World War II. By surveying these disputes, this paper examines whether or not the intended aims of the institutional translation proviso are achieved.
ISSN:2211-8349
Contient:In: Journal of Religion in Japan
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/22118349-00502005