. Background
debate: SPIRITUAL FREEDOM
REPLY CHURCH CASEY WEAVER
RESPONSE TO THE CHURCH CASEY WEAVER
REPLY
Henri Pena-Ruiz .
Mr. Peña-Ruiz:
His reply to my reflection on the "spiritual freedom" begins and ends similarly:
"The defenders of secularism, the debates should be raised from the rigor and intellectual honesty," says at the beginning.
"A true champion of secularism has better things to do than to face another in a manner so little respect from the point of view of ethical reflection. Plato said the philosophical dialogue is friendship (philia), even within the disagreement and discord not malicious (eris) or combat blind (polemos), "he concludes.
I do not know if he is wrong about the recipient, given the many articles I've posted about this problem, and they consistently rejected the notion of "secularism" (I speak of secularism and secular proclaim me), because secularism "in Spain is synonymous with religious freedom. This is not only thanks to the clergy, but also the foundation CIVES circles and close to it, encompassing well-known authors such as Gregorio Peces-Barba, or the theologian Juan José Tamayo, whose tagline is unchanged, "equal treatment of all religions." Make no mistake, then. My tagline, in any case, would be "equal treatment of all convictions (or, rather, individuals who belong to each of them, without considering the religious or nonreligious character of the same, spiritual or not spiritual of the same, knowing also that the same individual may simultaneously be ascribed to different beliefs of various kinds).
I think if there is something in which participants agree this debate is strongly polysemic character of the term "spirit" and therefore, the adjective "spiritual." And this is something that you shown in the generous and instructive tour of the philosophy to which I invited. Personally, I think it is appropriate at such polysemy book "spirit" and its adjective to the explanation of systems of thought or speech that is used, specifying the sense that charge in each of them.
specific In his book what we mean (Anthology Lay), the "spiritual freedom" refers to the belief or disbelief in God. In a more detailed, it is free to believe in God (in any of the available versions), of not believing in God (atheism) or no action on that belief or lack of belief (agnosticism).
wonder And you say that I draw a parallel between this notion and religious freedom, based on evidence that both approaches have no religious beliefs (freedom of having no religion at all) or beliefs that are not based belief in God (not believing in God or avoid rule) only in its negative side.
Moreover, I am not alone in noticing the parallels: the Vatican curia uses the terms "religious freedom" and "spiritual freedom" as synonyms. But good examples and quotes that show this parallelism have already been deployed throughout the debate, and does not seem appropriate to repeat them.
On the other hand, when you talk about political power, called "temporal power." Also, in my response to the kind replica of César Tejedor, I tried to go back to the significance of such conceptions.
As you understand, Mr. Pena-Ruiz, what worries me is the fact that you think about the secular nature of the way you see fit, but the possibility that a confusing terminology that seems to be assimilated by the movement secular in Spain.
Our history is very short secularist. However, the Constitution of the Second Republic is a masterful precision as regards freedom of conscience. And despite a tradition of "secularism" (not of secularism) from the amalgamation and childish philosophy, made to "save face", which was the krausismo: a pantheistic spiritualism at the same time, conceives of God as provident personal.
Moreover, the secular movement in Spain has some (limited, it is true) a solid foundation on which to build, legally and politically, in a language that does not move to the confusion. For example, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 25, 1981. There
interpreting the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 more directly linked to freedom of conscience, which is expressed as "freedom of thought, conscience, religion or whatever belief of free choice." That is, here is permitted and requires the deployment of all convictions (religious or not, spiritual or otherwise) in all its assertiveness, and not mere negations of others.
policy proposals are tested in practice. Talking to the "honesty" that you preach, do you think que avanzaríamos en el laicismo modificando el artículo 16 de la Constitución, cambiando su enunciado por el de “libertad espiritual”? En lugar de la Proposición de ley de libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia, o de cualesquiera convicciones de libre elección, ¿avanzaría en el laicismo una Proposición de ley de libertad espiritual, para sustituir la actual Ley orgánica de libertad religiosa?
A mí la respuesta me parece evidente, por eso dejo al margen sus alusiones personales y sus argumentos ad hominem, en el convencimiento de que nuestros lectores saben leer.
Atentamente.
Juan Francisco González Barón.
His reply to my reflection on the "spiritual freedom" begins and ends similarly:
"The defenders of secularism, the debates should be raised from the rigor and intellectual honesty," says at the beginning.
"A true champion of secularism has better things to do than to face another in a manner so little respect from the point of view of ethical reflection. Plato said the philosophical dialogue is friendship (philia), even within the disagreement and discord not malicious (eris) or combat blind (polemos), "he concludes.
I do not know if he is wrong about the recipient, given the many articles I've posted about this problem, and they consistently rejected the notion of "secularism" (I speak of secularism and secular proclaim me), because secularism "in Spain is synonymous with religious freedom. This is not only thanks to the clergy, but also the foundation CIVES circles and close to it, encompassing well-known authors such as Gregorio Peces-Barba, or the theologian Juan José Tamayo, whose tagline is unchanged, "equal treatment of all religions." Make no mistake, then. My tagline, in any case, would be "equal treatment of all convictions (or, rather, individuals who belong to each of them, without considering the religious or nonreligious character of the same, spiritual or not spiritual of the same, knowing also that the same individual may simultaneously be ascribed to different beliefs of various kinds).
I think if there is something in which participants agree this debate is strongly polysemic character of the term "spirit" and therefore, the adjective "spiritual." And this is something that you shown in the generous and instructive tour of the philosophy to which I invited. Personally, I think it is appropriate at such polysemy book "spirit" and its adjective to the explanation of systems of thought or speech that is used, specifying the sense that charge in each of them.
specific In his book what we mean (Anthology Lay), the "spiritual freedom" refers to the belief or disbelief in God. In a more detailed, it is free to believe in God (in any of the available versions), of not believing in God (atheism) or no action on that belief or lack of belief (agnosticism).
wonder And you say that I draw a parallel between this notion and religious freedom, based on evidence that both approaches have no religious beliefs (freedom of having no religion at all) or beliefs that are not based belief in God (not believing in God or avoid rule) only in its negative side.
Moreover, I am not alone in noticing the parallels: the Vatican curia uses the terms "religious freedom" and "spiritual freedom" as synonyms. But good examples and quotes that show this parallelism have already been deployed throughout the debate, and does not seem appropriate to repeat them.
On the other hand, when you talk about political power, called "temporal power." Also, in my response to the kind replica of César Tejedor, I tried to go back to the significance of such conceptions.
As you understand, Mr. Pena-Ruiz, what worries me is the fact that you think about the secular nature of the way you see fit, but the possibility that a confusing terminology that seems to be assimilated by the movement secular in Spain.
Our history is very short secularist. However, the Constitution of the Second Republic is a masterful precision as regards freedom of conscience. And despite a tradition of "secularism" (not of secularism) from the amalgamation and childish philosophy, made to "save face", which was the krausismo: a pantheistic spiritualism at the same time, conceives of God as provident personal.
Moreover, the secular movement in Spain has some (limited, it is true) a solid foundation on which to build, legally and politically, in a language that does not move to the confusion. For example, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 25, 1981. There
interpreting the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 more directly linked to freedom of conscience, which is expressed as "freedom of thought, conscience, religion or whatever belief of free choice." That is, here is permitted and requires the deployment of all convictions (religious or not, spiritual or otherwise) in all its assertiveness, and not mere negations of others.
policy proposals are tested in practice. Talking to the "honesty" that you preach, do you think que avanzaríamos en el laicismo modificando el artículo 16 de la Constitución, cambiando su enunciado por el de “libertad espiritual”? En lugar de la Proposición de ley de libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia, o de cualesquiera convicciones de libre elección, ¿avanzaría en el laicismo una Proposición de ley de libertad espiritual, para sustituir la actual Ley orgánica de libertad religiosa?
A mí la respuesta me parece evidente, por eso dejo al margen sus alusiones personales y sus argumentos ad hominem, en el convencimiento de que nuestros lectores saben leer.
Atentamente.
Juan Francisco González Barón.
0 comments:
Post a Comment