2004
Volume 1, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 2212-4810
  • E-ISSN: 2212-6465

Samenvatting

This article analyzes the relationship between religion and state from the viewpoint of Enlightenment philosophers who have shaped political modernity, along with their solutions to the religion-state relationship consonant with human freedom. In so doing, this article underlines the stakes of politicizing religion within modern democracies, highlighting particular approaches by contemporary religious thinkers and philosophical scholars that sketch out ways in which human freedom, both political and religious-theological, may be promoted.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00103005
2012-01-01
2026-01-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/22126465/1/3/22124810_001_03_S04_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00103005&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1.  In1854, Lincoln wrote: “In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” A similar point is made in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “ I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself…Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you…We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” (Emphases added).
/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00103005
Loading
  • Soort artikel: Research Article
Keyword(s): enlightenment; religion; secularism; state
Dit is een verplicht veld
Graag een geldig e-mailadres invoeren
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error