preview

Hum/111 Week 9 Final Paper

Decent Essays

I personally believe that Habermas is trying something quite idealistic: conciliate the principles of liberal democracy, such as the state neutrality regarding beliefs and deliberation using arguments accessible, understandable and acceptable by all the citizens, with religious principles, not only considering them legitimate but at the same time indispensable for a democratic coexistence. I do not disagree with a pre-disposition to listen to each other and be open to see the potential truth-content, translatable to values of public reason, such as solidarity or the respect to certain human rights. When Habermas indicates that if the State obliged the believers to argue “like if God did not exist” it would involve a huge renounce for them and inexistent …show more content…

What is the point of allowing the introduction of certain arguments in the political sphere when they have no prospective to inform the law? I am certainly afraid that one day the Parliament will become as, said before, a battlefield for the religions and eventually one religion will rule the Modern States and oppress others’ beliefs. In my opinion, a essential pre-condition of the democratic State is remaining apart from religious influences, and must limit itself to guarantee the freedom of religion of the citizens. In the terrain of the public opinion this matter changes, and as well when it comes to elections. The citizens, when casting votes, obviously can choose parties that support to their religious beliefs without justifying why, as other citizens vote for parties just because they sympathize with the ideology of certain parties without having even read the programme for that legislature. But, as said in the text, they must understand that within the institutions, the only admissible values are to be justified under the light of the constitutional

Get Access