Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Religious Arguments (religious + argument)
Selected AbstractsThe Place of Religious Arguments in Civic DiscussionRATIO JURIS, Issue 2 2000Juha Räikkä I shall consider whether morality requires citizens of democratic societies to advance secular reasons in public debates on political questions. Is it wrong to give purely religious reasons in political discussion? I shall argue that the moral acceptability of public religious arguments that are not supported with secular reasons depends on the political context we are discussing, and that often there is nothing wrong with using religious considerations. I shall also discuss the so-called shared premises requirement in political argumentation. The overall aim of the paper is to clarify intuitions concerning the ideals of public reason on the one hand, and the commitment to religious liberty on the other. [source] Permission to Speak: Religious Arguments in Public ReasonTHE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 2 2004SJ Patrick Riordan First page of article [source] RELIGION, PACIFISM, AND THE DOCTRINE OF RESTRAINTJOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS, Issue 2 2006Christopher J. Eberle ABSTRACT The doctrine of restraint is the claim that citizens and legislators ought to restrain themselves from making political decisions solely on religious grounds. That doctrine is normally construed as a general constraint on religious arguments: an exclusively religious rationale as such is an inappropriate basis for a political decision, particularly a coercive political decision. However, the most common arguments for the doctrine of restraint fail to show that citizens and legislators ought to obey the doctrine of restraint, as we can see by reflecting on those arguments as they bear on the Agapic Pacifist's rationale for denying that even legitimate political authorities may use lethal military force. [source] Religion and the "Evil Empire",JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY, Issue 2 2008HILARY CAREY This paper provides an historiographical review of the rhetorical and historical sources for religious suspicion of empires and imperialism in the west. It begins with an analysis of Ronald Reagan's celebrated "evil empire" speech of March 1983, and traces its polemical roots to scriptural precedents, notably in the Book of Revelation, in which "empire" is equated with the unjust rule of Babylon. Some comparisons are made between the general use of religious ideologies to support imperial regimes in ancient and other, more modern, world empires including China and Islam. The final section considers the debate about the role of religion in supporting , or critiquing , modern, secularised empire states such as the second British Empire. The paper argues that it is not possible to understand the problematical relationship of religion and empire in modern societies without recognising the ongoing force of Christian polemic even when religious arguments have not specifically been invoked. [source] The Place of Religious Arguments in Civic DiscussionRATIO JURIS, Issue 2 2000Juha Räikkä I shall consider whether morality requires citizens of democratic societies to advance secular reasons in public debates on political questions. Is it wrong to give purely religious reasons in political discussion? I shall argue that the moral acceptability of public religious arguments that are not supported with secular reasons depends on the political context we are discussing, and that often there is nothing wrong with using religious considerations. I shall also discuss the so-called shared premises requirement in political argumentation. The overall aim of the paper is to clarify intuitions concerning the ideals of public reason on the one hand, and the commitment to religious liberty on the other. [source] | ||||||||||