From Secularism to Post-Secularism ... 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 1 San Beda College San Beda Christian Bryan S. Bustamante, Ph.D. S. Bustamante, Bryan Christian From Secularism to Post-Secularism: Post-Secularism: Secularism to From he recent debate on the Reproductive the Filipino lead nation one think almost would to divided Health Law that According According to Alessandro Ferrara, secularism has three This article plows into the basic ideas of secularism, for T Jurgen Habermas on Religion in a Secular in a State on Religion Habermas Jurgen meanings. The first is what he calls as political secularism that post-secularism is a critique of secularism, but it does not abolish secularism. He proposes an inclusive is proposal His state. secular the and religion liberal between relationship framework on the proviso. John Rawls’s influenced by Secularism The Meanings and understanding secularism, we will also be enlightened relationship as between to the the Church and State comes particularly to when debates it on government programs and from policies. looking into Aside the basic ideas of discusses secularism, this Habermas’s article also notion of post-secularism. Habermas’s mindset or worldview among the Filipinos. It sees the passage of Filipinos, the on shift paradigm a of result a as law controversial the and not purely in terms of relationship between the maneuvering. of political or in terms State Church and us to understand its meaning and tenets as well as its history. In since it has the support of the have the current numbers in administration, the and Houses of they Congress. On the other hand, some would read it as a “sign” that secularism is Philippine creeping in society the and slowly influencing the The third ideas observation is interesting of since it Filipinos. signifies an emerging The passage of Reproductive Health The Law passage in of a Reproductive society dominated by Catholics, and the only Catholic country in Asia, was a surprise to some, it some is observers. For a sign of influence dwindling of the Catholic Church among its faithful and to government institutions. While others would look at it as a result of political maneuvering about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the State. inside.indd 1 inside.indd 2 Bustamante... h aporae nwr o h calne o rlgos pluralism. religious of challenges the to answer appropriate separation the and neutrality state. and religious church of of principles the espouses Standford University Press, 2011),202. Holberg PrizeLaureate Professor Jurgen Habermas: Religion inPublic Sphere, 12. Philosophy andSocialCriticism, vol. 35,nos. 1-3, 78. interpretedbe can meanings threerelevance. The and significance explanation of secularism comes from the point of view of religious life ofindividuals andinthesociety. public in belief religious and religion on significance put not does criticism.” position at ideallythat, least, retrogradewill ultimat a as religion “views and doctrines” religious towards stance polemical a “adopts Secularist secularist. of notion living meaningfully. Thethird meaningofsecularismis closeto the in and life understanding in guide as truths and values its use and it, choose to members individual on depends it many, the among or groups havecommunities that or itsownset ofvalues truths. Andasone and institutions existing the of one only as perceived is It state. and society modern in all at significance no has Religion society.modern in option, popular most the not and options, the of or theological. The third meaning of secularism sees religion as one sociological or be psychological may or language legal, but That definitely relationship. not only such religious new articulating find in language and alone lens religious the in relationships social and meaningless.and irrelevant becomes gradually symbols and rituals religious of use the and life; public and education politics, law, influencing ceases waning. gradually is life social in religion of the importance that sees secularism Social phenomena. social as secularism sees meaning second The equal. as faiths all treats and personal privateand as religionsegregates It state. and church divides that crossdeclaresnot It should influence concerned. line such the that is influence religious as far as line demarcation a puts however,it state; the and society the in irrelevant considered not is Religion 5 4 3 2 the 1 that demonstrate meanings three the Clearly, Ibid Ferrara,op 78-79. cit., Jurgen Habermas, “Religion inthePublicSphere” inTheHolberg Prize Seminar2005, Hugh Baxter, Habermas:TheDiscourseTheoryofLaw andDemocracy (California: Alessandro Ferrara, “TheSeparation ofReligion andPolitics inaPost-Secular in Society” 5 . The third meaning of secularism is purely secular for it for purelysecular is secularism of meaning third The 4 Individuals understand theirpolitical longer no 1 t s h slto t ed eiiu wr and wars religious end to solution the is It 1 ely dissolve in the acid of scientific 2 3 Religion 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 2

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ...

6 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 3 For dependency theory, religious truths, 7 Hawke Brunkhorst, “Hard Times for Democracy”in The Holberg Prize Seminar 2005, Prize Seminar The Holberg Democracy”in Brunkhorst, Times for “Hard Hawke Ibid., 97. 6 7 In addition, Helge Hoibraaten sees the rise of modern secular modern of rise the sees Hoibraaten Helge addition, In Hawke Hawke Brunkhorst provides philosophical perspectives 95. in Public Sphere, Habermas: Religion Jurgen Professor Prize Laureate Holberg Scientific reason and knowledge include the social sciences and the and sciences social the include knowledge and reason Scientific in modern period because that of evolved the influence of empiricism and positivism. thought as a “kind of assertive self-defense against the frightening meanings and truths. traditions, and practices should be seen as one of the propositions in remain to religion sees It claims. valid has that society modern in modern by eradicated absolutely be cannot and society modern the thoughts that are influenced by scientific reason and knowledge. Dependency theory sees the objective of independency theory as impossible, for it sees modern society as dependent on heritage; religious and in particular, European societies are democracy, dependent freedom, as such concepts modern on and heritage Biblical religious from evolved autonomy and sovereignty empire, solidarity, the achievement and realization of a better life and a better society. better a and life better a of realization and achievement the Hence, the objective of secularism is emancipation from religious traditions and practices with confused in and equated is society of modernization The society. order to achieve modernization progress and development. That is of why independency theory also sees the primitiveness of religion as an obstacle to advancement. in understanding secularism. Secularism can be understood and explained by religious and religions two former, the In mutually theory. exclusive dependency and theory readings of independency traditions and practices are as perceived “ideological obstacles” to (society) and of the individual (secularist). It is possible that a State State a that possible is It (secularist). individual the of and (society) is for secular, it adopts the principles of separation of church and state and religious freedom, but the society and the are individuals not, for they still find meaning in religious rituals and symbols and and functions. use it in social rituals in a continuum process: that political secularism can lead to social it hand, other the On stance. secularist to eventually and secularism can also be interpreted as separate phenomena: the secularization society the of secularization the to different is (political) State the of inside.indd 3 inside.indd 4 Bustamante... ide Ages.” Middle absolutism.” theological “human self-assertion against the theological absolutism of the late medieval to potential thought Guide to Descartes’ Meditations, ed.Stephen Gaukroger (USA: Blackwell PublishingLtd, 2006),110. Sphere, 51. Holberg PriSeminar2005,Holberg PrizeLaureate Professor Jurgen Habermas:Religion inPublic towards God. It is precisely the practical reason for God’s existence: morallybehaving is order.One moral of goal the is God ago, while God, foris a product Kant, of practical reason. As what mentioned a possible. freedom makes that order moral the reason. practical rejects that reason a – reason of product a is evil, or acts, immoralFor duties. Kant, such on based act must and moralduties their knowThey must disobeyingit. in consequences the wellas as laws moral understand and know to individuals for important is It dignity. without paramount importance and he defines it in the context of morality. puppets mechanical or marionettes like be will They fear. on act only will beings human impracticalis source.sourceIt forthe moralto be ofGod order, for however,its order;moral as of God goal see the not as does God he faith. of mattertheoretically, a is it for proven of be existence cannot the existence God’s deny that not explains however, he does God; hand, other the on Kant, existing and being. thinking as oneself of conscious being after God follows of consciousness the Hence, being. thinking and existing as an himself/herself of conscious becomes he/she when idea such reality,”infinite “formallybya caused is consciousness one’s in God of idea the that world.” the of control for methodical “foundations the the with us provide and true evidently are that representations contains that consciousness the castle,” “inner an Descartes’ idea. revolutionizedconsciousness man’sDescartescreated God. of this idea of development the to Kant Immanuel and 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 15 Ibid., 54. Helge Hoibraaten, “Post-metaphysical Religion inThe Thought, andSecularSociety” Lawrence NolanandAlanNelson, “Proofs for theExistence ofGod”inTheBlackwell Ibid., Ibid., p.56. Ibid. Ibid., p.55. Ibid. Hoibraaten, 56. opcit., It is an act of freedom that is against the moral order – order moral the against is that freedom of act an is It 9 obatn ie te nlec o Rn Descartes Rene of influence the cites Hoibraaten 11 hc i Gd bt ese eoe cncos of conscious becomes he/she but God, is which 4 12 10 Aside from that, Kant sees Kant that, from Aside huh ecre argues Descartes Though 13 at ie freedom gives Kant 16 h eitne of existence The 8 t s a is It 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 14

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ...

17 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 5 19 It is not between non-religious and religious or atheist 18 Ibid., p. 36. Mendieta eds. Eduardo in the Public Sphere, of Religion Judith Butler et al,The Power Charles Taylor, “Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism” in The Power in The Power of Secularism” Redefinition Need a Radical We “Why Taylor, Charles 18 19 17 Taylor Taylor offers his four-principle model of secularism as a Charles Taylor criticizes the fixation on religion in explaining explaining in religion on fixation the criticizes Taylor Charles Antwerpen (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 34-35. Press, Columbia University (New York: Antwerpen 2011), 60. Press, University Columbia (New York: Antwerpen and Jonathan Van Mendieta and Jonathan Van Judith Butler et al., eds. Eduardo in the Public Sphere, of Religion challenge of diversity.” framework in understanding the secular state. The secular state (1) protects people in their belongings, practices, and worldviews; speech, freedom of are assembly, one of the responses of modern democratic societies to political, ideological, in modern society. cultural diversity and resolve These principles recognize diversities. as considered be not should “religion that argues Taylor why is That special it case;” is rather, “simply one instance of the more general as well as of religious freedom are society’s These response to principles religious aim diversity. is outcomes to of the democratic The the other. over or religion of one faith shun political favoritism principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state, along with the principles of the freedom of the press, freedom of Secularism is beyond these two paradigms. It about is not religious essentially freedom consequences or of religious secularism. emancipation, “has to such According do with are to the correct response Taylor, diversity.” of secularism the democratic state to and theist. The principles of separation between church and state secularism. He recognizes secularism, the i.e., two a view contending between the that paradigms church and involves state, in but the does not “principled absolutely religion; disregard and distance” a view that espouses the ideas of society’s from freedom religion and religious outlook, and no input from religion. of God emanate from individual’s consciousness as well individual’s practical as reason. It from is no longer an idea of God that is absolutely outside and independent of one’s existence. It is a God and reason. consciousness human person’s born out of the God’s God’s existence provides comfort for those who that in behave the end, morally those who are moral will be rewarded. Descartes and Kant’s ideas influenced the development of the idea of human self-assertion against theological absolutism, because their ideas inside.indd 5 inside.indd 6 Bustamante... hs oe, alr lo mhszs h ne t udrtn the understand to need the emphasizes also Taylor model, this faiths. different of supporters and members between comity and relationship harmonious a maintains sectors (4) and and, individuals hearing; all gives (3) equally; people treats (2) University Press, 1996),13. 2005, Holberg PrizeLaureate Professor Jurgen Habermas:Religion inPublicSphere. 69. human, – is what see I things, ideal see you “Where states: further become: has everything there are no eternal facts, “But just as there are no absolute truths.” secularism: sustain that mind-set philosophical a illustrateto Nietzsche Friedrich wordsof these use of medievaland scholasticphilosophy andtheology. Iwould like to modern and the by Protestant Enlightenment Reformation, and that questioned and debunked the theology veracity modern the by even and by thought, philosophical influenced perspective a is of mind-set It stance and religion. a to state is modern or Secularism society modern secularism. in even of and explanation Hoibraaten Taylor’s Brunkhorst, Ferrara, in evident is This fraternity, asthebasesofcomplex requirements ofsecularism. liberty,equality,i.e., Revolution,and French of principles three the own moral basis, separate to religion. its That haveis why to Taylorand religion recognizes to independent state make to was goal Its church.” powerful a against “struggle of product a is Revolution rivalry all “exclude sects.” to Christian among but state secular the in religion eradicate to not was Amendment First the separation of goal the The as state. and well church of as religions all to neutrality state’s the is provision this of concern primary The thereof.”exercise free the impeding or religion establishing law no pass “shall Congress US America of States Revolution.French the United and the of Constitution the in amendment first contexts:”TheTaylor, founding important “two has secularism claims.” religious to juxtapositions “different and ” political “differenthave that traditions” and constructs ideological and “intellectual are Secularisms secularism. of origins historical 25 24 23 22 21 20 secularism. of discussion the in religion shun cannot We Taylor, 38-39. opcit., Craig Calhoun,Religion, Secularism,andPublicReasonin TheHolberg Prize Seminar Taylor, 35,37. opcit., Friedrich Nietzsche,Human, AllToo Human,trans. R.JHollingdale(USA: Cambridge Ibid., 39. Ibid., 38. 23 On the other hand, secularism in French in secularism hand, other the On 22 The First Amendment states that the that states Amendment First The 6 20 Aside from Aside 21 25 For 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM He 24

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ...

28 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 7 Secularism develops not only a mind-set 27 Secularism is a mind-set that dethroned 26 Baxter, op cit., 196. Baxter, on Center Lecture at Berkeley Habermas, Myth and Ritual (unpublished lecture Jurgen Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage Books, Vintage Books, Kaufmann (New York: Walter Homo, trans. Nietzsche, Ecce Friedrich 27 28 26 Jurgen Habermas, an agnostic and secular thinker, argues Jurgen in Habermas, an agnostic and secular thinker, 1989), 283. 19, 2011). October the mind and concludes that religion endures history. throughout In his conversation with Charles he Taylor, clarifies that religious influence must be given special attention, because it belongs to a “kind of family of discourse in which you do not just move within his recent his writings recent an that essential plays religion in role the social highly a in present still is It world. modern the of realms political and discourses political of realm the in influence its and state secularized cannot be undermined. In his lecture, Myth and Ritual, Habermas recognizes the essential role played by religion in the formation of and validities. and validities. Society Habermas’ Post-Secular process process and institutions as constructions of the human hence, can be altered by them. persons; Its truth is based on the discourses of contemporary sciences and on pragmatic solutions problems and miseries. to It is this human mind-set and attitude that divide the religious and the state. The former operates in the framework of secular mind-set and attitude that contradicts religious realities well as an attitude of doubt to the validity and certainty of religious religious of certainty and validity the to doubt of attitude an as well truths. Secularist thinking does not see and truth as metaphysical; transcendental and, it does not legal also see social, practices, political and processes, transcendental and metaphysical realities. It sees truth, and practices, institutions from vantage of evidentially evidentially depend on the existence institution on person a of pronouncement the on or considerations, of God, or on theological qua religious authority.” but also an attitude towards religion and religious belief. It is an attitude of negation of religion’s role in social and public lives as alas, alas, all-too-human.” the old and is, later on, successfully translated into constitutional and legal principles and into social norms that paved the way for the birth of modern institutions. It is a mind-set that “does not inside.indd 7 inside.indd 8 Bustamante... f euaiain O Rao ad eiin Hbra cts the cites Habermas Religion, and Reason On Secularization: of up with your membership in a community.” of domain human life, a but you of are speaking interpretation out…from an cognitiveexperience that a is tied within or worldview, a Istanbul Seminarsorganized by Reset DialoguesonCivilizations inIstanbul onJune2–6,2008.) VanAntwerpen (NewYork: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 2011),p.18. Political ThePower Theology”in ofReligion inPublicSphere, ed.Eduardo MendietaandJonathan and Religion, ed.FlorianSchuller, trans. BrianMcNeil,C.R.V. (SanFrancisco: Ignatius,2005),46. public a maintains “religion states, post-secular In communities. constitutional state;” democratic of bases normative the of justification post-secular a post-metaphysical towardsand non-religious “a by characterized is former moving are we state. that claims he 2008, entire life. one’s nurtures it and energy one’s of source the is it that claims He that religion plays an integral role in the life of a person with faith. content.” and Holberg speech entitled, Religion life in the Public Sphere, give he points out to continues that tradition a from public reason, for disengaging religiousit means to “disconnect public reason largely in “developed Europe.”in discourses liberation ideas and secular and emancipation modern of that fact the of note reason.” takes public Habermas of genealogy the of secular. part is the “religion differently, and the religious of the manifestations between are assimilation rituals state into rituals religious the of transformation the and divine the with dynasties ruling the of assimilated. are mentalities secular and religious where consciousness public the of modernization the in phase a is desirable. societally are that attitudes and functional contribution of religion to the reproduction of motivation 38 39 The secular state is different to post-secular state, for the for state, post-secular to different is state secular The 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 June on Seminar Istanbul the at presented paper his In while, the latter is characterized by the presence of religious Ibid. Ibid. Craig 65. Calhoun,opcit., Jurgen Habermas,“ThePolitical: TheRational MeaningofaQuestionableInheritance Ibid., 46-47. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Jurgen Habermas, on Secularization: On Reason 63. Judith Butleretal,opcit., Ratzinger and Habermas,op cit., 24. Ratzinger andHabermas,op cit., Jurgen Habermas,“A post-secular society–what doesthatmean?,”(delivered atthe Ibid. Jurgen Habermas,Religion inthePublicSphere, 14. 37

34 Hence, religion cannot be disengaged fromdisengaged be religioncannot Hence, 8 29 30 In the book, Dialectics He admits that there that admits He 31 The connection The 32 o u it put To 35 n his In 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 33 36

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ...

44 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM It is 41 Habermas Habermas 43 Habermas’ post- 42 . 9 because through it unity and connection and unity it through because 47 He calls this as the new epistemic attitude. In attitude. epistemic new the as this calls He 46 Habermas’ post-secularism is not a matter of objective 40 Ibid. 12. in the Public Sphere, Habermas,Religion Jurgen Habermas of Jurgen in the Discourse and Solidarity: A Study Insight Rehg, W. Austin Harrington, “Habermas and the Post-secular Society” in European Journal of Society” in European “Habermas and the Post-secular Harrington, Austin Meaning and for Search Habermas’s Post-secular in Religion: “Faith Arne Johan Vetlesen, Society” in The in the Post-Secular Thomas M. Schmidt, “The Discourse of Religion Jurgen Habermas, A post-secular society – what does that mean? does that Habermas, A post-secular society – what Jurgen in a Dialogue on and Michael Walzer Ramadan Habermas, Tariq Kaul, “Jurgen Volker 46 45 47 42 43 44 40 41 Because of post-secularism, Habermas proposes a shift

45 Sphere, 83. Sphere, 1994), 41 Press, of California University (Berkeley: Politics and Religion” in Philosophy and Social Criticism, vol. 36, nos. 3-4 (London: Sage Publications, 36, nos. 3-4 (London: Sage Publications, vol. and Social Criticism, in Philosophy and Religion” Politics 2010), 507. 2007), 547. 10(4) (London: Sage Publications, , Habermas: Jurgen Professor Prize Laureate Solidarity”in Prize Seminar 2005, Holberg The Holberg 22. in Public Sphere, Religion in Public Habermas: Religion Jurgen Professor Prize Laureate Prize Seminar 2005, Holberg Holberg his theory of communicative action, he gives emphasis on the role of role the on emphasis gives he action, communicative of theory his “link the is Language understanding. universal at arrive to language universalization,” between from from normative to epistemological arguments and highlights the importance of learning processes as a important liberal political mechanisms order, in for without cooperation which from mutual citizens respect and of achieved. be cannot different faiths and backgrounds adjust to the “persistence of faith-based convictions.” advocates for a “permanent coexistence of religious convictions” and secular and renounces the superiority Secular of reason might err secular while religious conviction reason. might also be true. lives. Rather, it is a shift in public perception and opinion influenced opinion and perception public in shift a is it Rather, lives. by religions and religious or a public oriented. The outlook implication of that post-secularism is the is need persist to communities adjust religiously religious that “fact the to citizens secular the by in the midst of modernized society; more so, need non-believers to a change in consciousness that signifies a “revision of a previously secularist overconfidently outlook, rather than a return of religion to a stage on which it literally that timeline had a provide not does once words, other in secularism, been absent.” public and social in dominance religious of resurrection the to refers influence and relevance, while the secularistic certainty that religion religion that certainty secularistic the while relevance, and influence will disappear worldwide in the course of modernization is losing ground.” reality, but of public perception and individual subjectivity. inside.indd 9 inside.indd 10 Bustamante... cin s o rie t oriain f cin n cness by confrontthat situation the of understanding common individuals. consensus and action of coordination invoking claims that at are accepted by arriveall as valid, or toto come up with a is action communicative of goal The achieved. be can individuals between 126. Companion to Habermas,Stephen K.White ed.,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), 146. Companion to Habermas,Stephen K.White ed.,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), symbols, utterances, of meanings the learning by acquired is that understanding of attitude an is attitude epistemic new Habermas’ dimension of membership, socialization, and prescribed practices.” social the rootedin are that beliefsexistential and cognitivebeliefs reason.” human same the onlyand is one there and science; in and enterprise cultural in as well as in general cognitive level – “reason is working in religious traditions, fact that there is no difference in broad cultural level of reasoning and irrational.and Inthenewepistemic we attitude, have to acceptthe societies” pre-modern of relics archaic as communities religious and traditions religious perceive not should citizens secular hand, learn how to adopt toward havetheir secular environment;” on should the other citizens religious that means attitude epistemic new living conditions for which no alternatives any longer exist.” modern of light the in faith of people for compelling is that truths learning” and a learning that arises from a “reconstruction epistemicof sacred new by “acquired as attitude the epistemic new this describes He develop attitude. they if consensus and coordination cooperation, understanding, common at arrived can states secular contextthe In communicativeHabermas’ of post- of citizens action, disputed claims, They should also establish rules and norms to secure the validity of others.”challenge tonormative and and self-presentationsclaims and all must be given the equal chances to speak, to make assertions, deceit; and intimidation coercion, of fear without claims challenge and raise to “free be should action communicative in participants It is a procedure that leads to common understanding. That is why, 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 G. Warnke, “Communicative Rationality and Cultural Values” inTheCambridge J. DonaldMoon,“Practical DiscourseandCommunicative Ethics” inTheCambridge Ibid., 62. Judith Butleretal,ThePower ofReligion inthePublic Sphere, 61. Ibid. J. Habermas,Religion inPublicSphere, 17. Ibid. 50 and such are instrument in arriving at agreement. 10 53 Religious reasons depend on depend reasons Religious 51 This 5/13/2014 4:13:42 PM 49 48 54 52

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ... 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM The secular 57 because it cannot 55 Habermas, For the 56 11 Ibid., 13. Ibid., 14. Ibid. 55 56 57 The participation of citizens of faith in political public sphere sphere public political in faith of citizens of participation The Habermas’ post-secularism recognizes the secular character character secular the recognizes post-secularism Habermas’

the Secular State has limitations. Habermas defines such limitation by requiring the citizens of faith to translate religious language to secular language when it is used to formulate or justify political decisions that will new epistemic attitude. Then and again, I would like to reiterate that one of the requisites in a developing new epistemic attitude is as reason. and faith accepting religion by Habermas’ Translation and the Relationship of Religion and that some people of faith who are using secular and legal language are influenced by religious reason. Their arguments and opinions also contain an element of faith. In post-secularism, the secular or the secularist and the citizens of faith co-exist harmoniously. This harmonious co-existence is a product of respect developed out of world world cannot deny the fact that religion plays an essential role in the formation of one’s opinion and worldview. When citizens faith of participate in public sphere, the influence of their belief in their religious political discourses cannot be discounted. Religious communities and organizations reality given a is It in sphere. public the in secular participation their of denied state cannot also be expect expect the citizens of faith “to private split components” when their they participate in identity public debates in and public and contribute to the formation of public opinion. “undue into translated be not should state and church of separation mental and for psychological burden” people of faith. of state that espouses the principles of separation of church freedom and state. of But he religion argues that the and separation of church and state espoused by secular state isnot yet sufficient freedom, equal religious condition guarantee to practices, beliefs practices, and rituals of the religious and secular worlds. In secular the from people and faith of citizens the society, pluralistic a world have a duty to recognize their differences and work toward such differences. learning and understanding by consensus inside.indd 11 inside.indd 12 Bustamante... esn h i nes o e rnltd Te enn o religious of meaning The translated. be to needs it why reason first the is members its to language religious the exclusivityof The realm. political secular the entered faith of citizens when required be enforced as a law. Religion inPublicSphere,21. TheHolberg PrizeSeminar2005,HolbergSolidarity”in PrizeLaureate Professor Jurgen Habermas: Democratic Citizenship?” inPhilosophy andSocialCriticism,volume 35, numbers1-2,131. truth monopolizes religion no that requirement translation the in on the part of religion and state, tolerance and respect. the requirement of democratic legitimacy, butitalsodemonstrates, requires. legitimacy” democratic that citizens religious of inclusion political the secure to “need the as well as legitimacy” democratic of criterion “liberal a of need the meets it Lafont, Cristina of words the In processes. democratic views in religious of accommodation an is requirement translation Habermas’ courts required. is translation bodies, - legislativebodies , agencies, of executive - arena public the in heard be to voices their for And non-religious. and religious – worldviews other with competing are they process, democratic a in that fact the accept must Religions faiths. other believersof and language of their doctrines, for it to be understood by non-believers the totranslate religions of responsibility the is it hence, equal; all a neutrality,of are religionsprinciple the of policy.In public particular foundation the as doctrine religious a regard to decision, superior its of basis as sole the as truth discourse religious religious a use to one or other, the consider over to state the allow not debates. public to contribute to expressas well as truths their to religions allows neutrality State’s translation. the for language,” religious which the is exclusivist. The neutrality of in the state is the second reason ones the than general more are that is which accessible language to all that is the and secular language, all, in orderto “to accessible arrive at is reasons that language a in is presentedbe must That language religious that stresses whyHabermas members. of solidarity the also not but is communication function only Its language. the understand and see to faith the have who those – believe who those to only available is language 62 61 60 59 58 Cristina Lafont, “ReligionCristina Lafont, andthePublicSphere: Whatare deliberative Obligations of 51. Ratzinger andHabermas,op cit., Ibid., 114. Ibid., 64. Arne JohanVetlesen, “Faith inReligion: Habermas’sPost-Secular Search for Meaningand 58 There are various reasons why translation is 12 61 Translation does not only meet only not does Translation 62 60 It is implied But it does it But 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM 59

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ... 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM The story of creation conveys 63 13 Jurgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature (: Polity Press, 2003), Press, Kingdom: Polity (United of Human Nature Habermas, The Future Jurgen 63 In his book, The Future of Human Nature, Habermas 114. created by a Supreme Being that is not human, but God. The human The God. but human, not is that Being Supreme a by created person as created is not the human person only as an basis image and likeness ofequality, of but God. Human also persons, their the roles and whatever statuses in life, culture or and civilization, does creator, the God, God. of likeness and image are belief, or faith be to nation a to or people of group a to option preferential give not story expresses the equality of all human persons. Human persons’ Human persons. human all of equality the expresses story are they story, the of language the in and same, the and one is nature human all of equality The God. of likeness and image the in created beings is that they are created. It means that no human person is created by another human or can create another human. All are story story are two different entities. They are absolutely different with one another and they are not equal with one another. The human does it however, God; of likeness and image the in created is person not mean that he/she is God or can play God. He/she is a creature of God, the creator. That fact cannot be changed. Secondly, the translation illustrates of religious doctrine to secular language. On the issue of genetic engineering, critics would also the evoke story of creation in the book of Genesis – God created man image in and his own likeness (Gen. 1:27). the in creature the and creator the First, humanity. about meanings religion, religion, is futile if there is no recognition of religious discourses and rituals as reasonable. The burden on the part of the religious acceptance is it state secular the of part the on while, translation; is of religion as reason and to rely on religious decision-making. and process reasons in political demonstrated in allowing them to participate but also in its attitude attitude its in also but participate to them allowing in demonstrated that it paper this of part earlier the in mentioned was It religion. to is a must for the state, or the secular world, to recognize religions as rational; and such is the greatest demonstration of respect and a challenge to the state. Translation requirement, on the part of and religious views are considered equal. Hence, the state not must restrict religion’s participation in democratic articulation processes of and support or disagreement on proposed or policies. enacted State’s respect to religion, however, cannot only be inside.indd 13 inside.indd 14 Bustamante... one likeness and image, they share the same humanity and dignity.and humanity same the sharethey image, and likeness one in createdare persons human creator,Since the equality,is God. it equal in this likeness. If there is one being that is exempted from this His image and likeness. All human persons are one and the same or reasonable conflicting of plurality the free, are institutions where democraticsociety,constitutional a proviso.Rawlsin that explains Rawls’s Influence to Habermas’Translation that canbeunderstood by peoplewithdifferent worldviews. is it language a in God, argument the present of to faith likenessof citizen for and practical image the in created is person human the that language Biblical the in arguing of Instead religious. and secular all, to accessible is that language is It engineering. genetic dignity, equality and liberty of all human persons in arguing against Habermas illustrates that a citizen of faith must use the language of among persons of equal birth in order to ensure their difference?” human being at the same time destroy the equal freedoms that exist another of essence natural the discretion, own his at determine, to being human first the not “Would question: the raises Habermas engineering, genetic of issue the to relation the in And another. for of life decide can or freedom one’s restraint can person human another. of life freedom.being’s human entail also Equalitydignity human and No the determine can and other the over superior is equal and all share the same dignity and humanity. No human person Genesis is about human dignity and equality. All human persons are that reflects his/herown imageandlikeness. person human another at but being, human a at staring simply not are other,they each with interact they when that fact the of them reminds and humanity.It same the to recognizebelonging themselvesas respect must they why, is that likeness; and image that of manifestation concrete their a is frombeing human every and as Each equality. well as “sameness” their from springs that dignity human beings that must be recognized and respected. It is a human all of dignity conveys:The story the that meaning third the is This 64 Rawls’s John by influenced is translation of idea Habermas’ of book creationthe storyof in translationthe Habermas’ of Ibid., 115. 14 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM 64 From Secularism to Post-Secularism ... 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM The criterion of 66 15 That is why the civil society that includes the religious John Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” in The Law of Chicago Law in The University Revisited” “The Idea of Public Reason John Rawls, Ibid, 767. 65 65 66 64, Summer 1997, Number 3, 766. Review,Vol. also qualifies reason as public when it is the reason or of discourse free and equal citizens, the subject matter of which is the public good, and its nature and content is “expressed in public reasoning reasonably justice political of conceptions reasonable of family a by thought to satisfy the criterion of reciprocity.” executive. Not all political questions and discussions of fundamental of discussions and questions political all Not executive. questions are considered as public. Such questions become public when it is discussed in the realm of public institutions such as the legislative, the judiciary, the executive. Discourses of candidates running for public office are also considered public reason. Rawls and public reason (which belongs to the well ordered constitutional ordered well the to belongs (which reason public and democratic society). The distinction is important for Rawls would like to emphasize that a is it or the, which by discussed is it when public becomes unites Reason reason. a pluralistic chief the society, or public judiciary, or legislature, the of members the, of discourse well well ordered constitutional democratic society. It that is unifies the the citizens with reason varying comprehensive doctrines or by defined are that organizations society civil different to belonging their own set of comprehensive doctrines in such kind of culture” society; “background the between distinction a makes Rawls hence, groups) society civil of doctrines comprehensive the to refers (which incompatible with the essentials of public reason and a democratic society.” and nonreligious comprehensive doctrines is relegated by Rawls as “background culture” and such is and separate distinct to public reason. Public reason, as mentioned a while ago, belongs to a public reason, they address each other address as they public citizens reason, and based on the politically reasonable conception of justice, not on comprehensive doctrines. According to reason Rawls, is that it “central neither criticizes to nor attacks is any doctrine that as the comprehensive insofar except nonreligious, or religious doctrine, idea of public comprehensive comprehensive doctrines exists. In this ordered light, democratic citizens society of must a set well aside doctrines their and comprehensive consider the kinds of fundamental political In questions. in addressing another with one reason that they can share inside.indd 15 inside.indd 16 Bustamante... reason is that what is considered to be reasonably just and fair by fair and just reasonably be to considered is what that is reason public of content The citizens. among consensus or agreement an reason. public in essential is reciprocity be bracketed from theirpersonal,socialandcultural prejudices andbiases. formulation ofprinciplesjusticethatisgoodandacceptableto all.Andto achieve they have that, to 137). Inshortparticipantsinoriginal positionaspure procedural justiceare focused only onthe political affairs, economictheory, basisofsocialorganization andlaws ofhumanpsychology (page facts thatare related to thechoiceofprinciplesjustice, i.e.,general facts aboutthesociety, and politicalsituations,level ofcivilization andculture (page137).Whatthey know are general themselves, i.e.,socialstatus,strength andabilities,certainfacts aboutthesociety, i.e,economic of ignorance;” andparticipantsundertheveil ofignorance are blindedaboutcertainfacts about 136). Asapure procedural justice,participantsintheoriginalpositionare “situated behindtheveil just” (page136).Itsaimis“to usethenotionofpure procedural (page justiceasabasisoftheory” the ideaoforiginalpositionis“to setupafair procedure sothatany principles agreed to willbe balance ofsocialforces” andas“purely hypothetical situation” (page120).Hefurtherexplains that as moral personsandtheoutcome isnotconditionedby arbitrary contingenciesortherelative Rawls describesoriginalpositionasa“statusquoinwhich theparties are equally represented Rawls’ “TheIdeaofPublicReason Revisited,” page770). they think themostreasonable, butthey willagree thatallare reasonable, even ifbarely so” (See political orsocialposition.Citizenswillofcoursediffer asto which conceptionsofpoliticaljustice free andequalcitizens,notasdominated ormanipulated, orunderthepressure ofaninferior cooperation, those proposing themmustalsothinkitatleastreasonable for otherto acceptthem,as reciprocity requires thatwhen thoseterms are proposed asthemostreasonable terms offair in particularsituations,provided thatothercitizensalsoacceptthose terms. Thecriterion of of politicaljustice;andwhen they agree to actonthoseterms, even atthecostoftheirown interests another fair terms ofcooperation according to what they considerthemostreasonable conception free andequalinasystem ofsocialcooperation over generations, they are prepared to offer one as doctrines, justice comprehensive “reasonable of that explains principles He political fairness. of conception the in doctrines acceptable conception ofjustice. and reasonable a of formulation the on eyes their set to have They doctrines. comprehensive non-religious or religious their on based argue of cannot Rawls,they of language the In principles justice. acceptable and reasonable with up come different to the parties for required situation a economic is It and cultural, prejudices. and political, biases social, personal, their from off them shut completely that situation a ignorance, of veil the behind is just and fair. For that outcome to be just and fair, participants are outcomeprocedure whosepure and fair a representedequallyand position. original in are citizens fair, and just reasonably be to considered they which that agreement an with up coming of process the In citizens. the 68 67 comprehensive of usage the in flexible is however,Rawls, In hiswork, ATheoryofJustice(Massachusetts:Harvard University Press, 1971), Rawls explains reciprocity as:“Citizensare reasonable when, viewingoneanotheras 68 t s stain hr dfeet ate are parties different where situation a is It 16 67 ulc esn te, is then, reason, Public 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM From Secularism to Post-Secularism ... He 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM 69 However, 70 That is why it is the duty 71 17 Habermas would like also to emphasize the the emphasize to also like would Habermas 72 Habermas, “Religion in Public Sphere,” 14. in Public Sphere,” Habermas, “Religion John Rawls, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, 783-784. Revisited, The Idea of Public Reason John Rawls, Ibid., 784. of the political the problems that “recognizes that John Rawls Habermas explains 72 69 70 71 Habermas does not agree with Rawls’s idea that impact of the role of religion in civil society has not been solved by the secularization of the political by society has not been solved in civil of religion impact of the role is not the same as the secularization of society (see authority per se. The secularization of the state page 23). Theology,” Inheritance of Political Meaning of a Questionable The Rational “The Political: he presents his translation requirement. Instead of using proper political reasons to support religious citizens of faith comprehensive present it doctrines, in a language that accessible to all, and unique role of religion in one’s life – as the source of meaning energy and as and the powerful force that formed one’s mind. Such make the of proviso impractical Rawls to people of faith. However, he agrees with Rawls that religious comprehensive doctrines play why is That forum. or debate political public in restricted be cannot religious religious convictions alone, and without influence of world; the consistent secular not while, is it some, others for and, cannot reason; secular and discern reason religious on the difference between with their faith to support their religious reason with political or reason. constitutional of one’s doctrines also breeds acceptance and respect. acceptance also breeds of one’s doctrines comprehensive doctrine when presented in public forum must be proviso the that explains He reasons. political proper by supported is a mental and psychological burden for citizens of faith, because their on based be must decisions political that believe them of many reality that citizens in a pluralistic society cannot get away from the from away get cannot society pluralistic a in citizens that reality influences of doctrines. comprehensive of citizen, every which calls Rawls as to understand duty of civility, one another’s doctrines, comprehensive so that such doctrines can understanding mutual The discussion. political in used positively be the comprehensive doctrines the introduced are comprehensive said to support.” calls this as proviso – the introduction of doctrines comprehensive into public political discussion for this must be done in positive good faith, with utmost sincerity and without reasons. manipulation. In his notion of proviso, Rawls accepts the social religious religious or nonreligious, may be discussion introduced in at public political any political time, reasons – and not reasons given solely by provided comprehensive that doctrines in – are presented that due are sufficient to support course whatever proper inside.indd 17 inside.indd 18 Bustamante... that religious institutions and argument contribute to the “realized the tocontribute argument and institutions religious that argues Weithmann Wolterstoff. Nicholas and Weithmann Paul by influenced view,is this in Habermas, language. secular the is such Post-Secular a in Politics and Religion of Separation “The Alessandro, Ferrera, Calhoun, Craig,“Religion, Secularism,andPublicReason”in Hawke,“HardBrunkhorst, Timesfor Democracy” in Baxter, Hugh, debates usingtheirreligious reason. political in participate to faith of citizens for available option best the Translationis legal. and constitutional is state the of language a secular state is neutral to religious beliefs and reasons; hence, the Furthermore, accessible. and acceptable most the is language and faith must accept the fact that in a pluralistic society, secular reason of citizens that is reply Habermas’ proviso?Rawls’s to critique his of guilty not requirement translation Habermas’ is But, influence. religious their support to reason with political or believerssecular reason because of such tremendous require to realistic impossible not is and It religion. by transformed and shaped is believer or faithful of being whole the that reality the discount not do They members. its toreligion of significance Wolterstoffpolitical the see changed” as the proper duty of civility. “listening to others with a willingness to learn and to let on religiousone’s reasons” in political mind debate and voting and be he proposes Wolterstoff, on the other hand, argues against the “general restraint discourse.”democraticto political concerns of set vocabularyand moral valuable and “distinctive a to and individuals of citizenship” 74 73 Ibid., 198-200. Baxter, opcit.,197. Society,” inPhilosophy andSocialCriticism, vol. 35,nos.1-3,p.78. Religion inPublicSphere Holberg2005, Seminar Prize Laureate Professor Jurgen Habermas: Public Sphere Holberg2005, Prize Laureate Professor JurgenHabermas: Religion in Standford University Press, 2011). Habermas: The Discourse Theory ofLawandDemocracyHabermas: TheDiscourse Theory . REFERENCES . 18 74 Habermas, Weithmann and

The Holberg Prize Seminar The Holberg Prize (California: 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM

73

From Secularism to Post-Secularism ...

, 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM Vintage Vintage , vol. 36, ” in The On Reason On Reason Religion in Religion : The Cambridge The Cambridge ” in European Journal , ed. Stephen Gaukroger The Power of Religion in Public of Religion The Power The Holberg Prize Seminar 2005, Prize The Holberg Philosophy and Social Criticism Philosophy ” in The University of Chicago Law Law Chicago of University The in ” : What are deliberative Obligations Obligations deliberative are What : A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Ethics Discourse in the A Study Dialectics on Secularization Philosophy and Social Criticism and Philosophy ed. Stephen K. White, (Cambridge: 19 Proofs for the Existence of God Existence the for Proofs , trans. R.J Hollingdale (USA: Cambridge (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971). Press, University (Massachusetts: Harvard (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Press, of California University (Berkeley: , ed. Florian Schuller, trans. Brian McNeil, C.R.V. (San ). Guide to Descartes’ Meditations Descartes’ Guide to Habermas and the Post-secular Society Post-secular Habermas and the , Judith Butlter et al., eds. Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan Religion and the Public Sphere and the Religion Human, All Too Human Too Human, All Jurgen Habermas Jurgen and Religion Ignatius, 2005). Francisco: 64, summer 1997, number 3. vol. Review, Rehg, W.Insight and Solidarity: Books, 1989 1996). Press, University Companion to Habermas, to Companion 1995). Press, Cambridge University Holberg Holberg Prize Seminar 2005, in Public Sphere. Holberg Habermas: Religion Jurgen Prize Laureate Professor on Politics and Religion” in 2010) nos. 3-4 (London: Sage Publications, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited The Idea of Public Reason Blackwell Blackwell 2006). Publishing Ltd, Blackwell (USA: of Democratic Citizenship?” in 35, numbers 1-2. volume on October 19, 2011). on October Holberg Prize Laureate Professor Jurgen Public Sphere. Habermas: 10(4) (London: Sage Publications, 2007). of Social Theory, Inheritance Inheritance of Political Theology” in Sphere 2011). Press, University Columbia York: (New VanAntwerpen Dialogues Reset by organized Seminars Istanbul the at delivered lecture 2008). in Istanbul on June 2 – 6, on Civilizations A Theory of Justice ______, “A post-secular society – what does that mean?”(unpublished does that mean?”(unpublished post-secular society – what ______, “A Ratzinger, Joseph Ratzinger, and Jurgen Habermas, John,“ Rawls, ______, ______, Nolan, Lawrence and Alan Nelson, “ Moon, J. Donald,“Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics” in Ethics” Communicative and Discourse Donald,“Practical J. Moon, Nietzsche, Friedrich,Ecce Homo, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Hoibraaten, Hoibraaten, “Post-metaphysical Thought, Religion and Secular Society” in The in a Dialogue and Michael Ramadan Walzer Habermas, Tariq Kaul, Volker,“Jurgen “ Cristina, Lafont, ______,“Religion in ______,“Religion the Public Sphere”in Harrington, Austin,“ ______, “Myth and Ritual” (unpublished lecture at Berkeley Lecture Center Center Lecture Berkeley at lecture (unpublished Ritual” and “Myth ______, Habermas, Habermas, Jurgen, “The Political: The Rational Meaning of a Questionable inside.indd 19 inside.indd 20 Bustamante... Taylor,Charles,“ “ M. Thomas Schmidt, ane G, “ G., Warnke, for Search Post-secular Habermas’s Religion: in Johan,Faith Arne Vetlesen, Jurgen Habermas: ProfessorLaureate Prize Holberg 2005, Seminar Prize Holberg The (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995) Cambridge PrizeLaureate in Solidarity and Meaning University Press, 2011). Mendieta Religionof inthe PublicSphere, Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism of Redefinition Radical a WeNeed Why Communicative Rationality andCultural Values The DiscourseThe Religionof thein Post-Secular Society opno t Hbra, d Sehn . White, K. Stephen ed. Habermas, to Companion Columbia York: (New Antwerpen Van Jonathan and Professor Jurgen Habermas: Religion inPublicSphere. 20 The HolbergPrize 2005 Seminar Judith Butlter et al., eds. Eduardo eds. al., et Butlter Judith Religion Sphere.Public in ” in ” i The in ” The PowerThe , Holberg 5/13/2014 4:13:43 PM in ”