Achieving Disagreement: From Indifference to Pluralism

"Pluralism must not be confused with, and is in fact endangered by, philosophical and ethical indifference. Commitment to strong, clear philosophical and ethical ideas need not imply either intolerance or opposition to democratic pluralism. On the contrary, democratic pluralism requires an agre...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Weigel, George 1951- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press 1990
In: Journal of law and religion
Year: 1990, Volume: 8, Issue: 1/2, Pages: 175-187
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1823297285
003 DE-627
005 20221123171342.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221123s1990 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.2307/1051264  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1823297285 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1823297285 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)119526972  |0 (DE-627)080343643  |0 (DE-576)164321071  |4 aut  |a Weigel, George  |d 1951- 
109 |a Weigel, George 1951-  |a Weigel, George S. 1951- 
245 1 0 |a Achieving Disagreement  |b From Indifference to Pluralism 
264 1 |c 1990 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a "Pluralism must not be confused with, and is in fact endangered by, philosophical and ethical indifference. Commitment to strong, clear philosophical and ethical ideas need not imply either intolerance or opposition to democratic pluralism. On the contrary, democratic pluralism requires an agreement to be locked in public argument over disagreements of consequence within the bonds of civility." - The Williamsburg CharterThe question of how we contend in the American public square on the many issues involved in the question of the First Amendment's religious clauses (or "clause," as some of us would insist) is inextricably bound up in the question of who constitutes the "we" involved in the contention. That is, how we contend must take account of who we are. Unless there is some clarity on this point, the debate over the nature of the civility to which we are called is doomed to be conducted at a perilous level of abstraction.As I survey the terrain from my own vantage point - that of a Roman Catholic theologian engaged in a host of issues and controversies at the intersection of moral norms and American public policy - the "we" involved here is a many splendored thing indeed. For our purposes, it seems to me that the "we" has at least four salient characteristics. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of law and religion  |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983  |g 8(1990), 1/2, Seite 175-187  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)461908581  |w (DE-600)2164472-X  |w (DE-576)273875132  |x 2163-3088  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:8  |g year:1990  |g number:1/2  |g pages:175-187 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.2307/1051264  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/achieving-disagreement-from-indifference-to-pluralism/0C7450FC339698D6E074DB4E2D66851C  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4218755493 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1823297285 
LOK |0 005 20221123162515 
LOK |0 008 221123||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo  |a rwrk 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL