Adjunto la réplica de César Tejedor de la Iglesia a mi artículo publicado en este blog en noviembre sobre la "libertad espiritual".
.
***
.
Es motivo de orgullo y satisfacción para mí que la reciente publicación de nuestro libro Antología laica. 66 textos comentados para comprender el laicismo haya servido para dinamizar el debate y la discusión constructiva sobre los conceptos, muchas veces controvertidos, y las implicit in the secular. I think this kind of thinking is very advantageous to avoid falling into the stagnation so characteristic of other streams of thought clerical, of which we still suffer the consequences, and even more advantageous, if possible, when he endorsed the criticism is a major defenders of secularism in Spain. Not surprisingly, the potential controversy that has arisen from our book reading respond to a conceptual problem, but not content. In this sense, I agree with everything that you advocate in your article, and understand that the discussion is in the level of the terms used. I would say a philosopher who disagree with the "letter" but not the "spirit" (To avoid creating more confusion, we would say no more on the content).
.
In fact, I totally agree with you when you say that the English Constitution, freedom of conscience so clumsy restricted to religious freedom in fact seen as lacking any kind of conviction that is not religious. So we wanted to complain, like you, in our book (text XVII. English Constitution. "Conflicting constitutional principles"). It is unacceptable that in one article (16.3) is established by the Establishment Clause principle of State ("No religion shall have a state character), and just then considered as the only valid religious beliefs, even going to legitimize relations with a particular institution, listed under name, which stands as representative of a particular religious belief ("The public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs English society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions. ") And you and I cry: What? Do the beliefs that can not be considered religious do not deserve the same consideration? Pierre Bayle and demonstrated, and we have explained in the book, that the spectrum of belief human can not be reduced to various religious beliefs, like the religions no longer existed a total lack of conviction. In his book Thoughts on the different comet (XVIII text) takes a simple idea, but powerful: in the same way that religious believers have been criminals, atheists have been virtuous. Bayle did not mean that the only alternative to belief beyond atheism. His thoughts went far beyond. What I wanted to show was that the defense of human values \u200b\u200bwas not necessarily based on religious belief, as some thinkers of his time clerical intended. A believer can be virtuous, but also can be an atheist, an agnostic a Lamaist or a Buddhist, or even someone whose beliefs are not recognized by any preset cliché.
In fact, I totally agree with you when you say that the English Constitution, freedom of conscience so clumsy restricted to religious freedom in fact seen as lacking any kind of conviction that is not religious. So we wanted to complain, like you, in our book (text XVII. English Constitution. "Conflicting constitutional principles"). It is unacceptable that in one article (16.3) is established by the Establishment Clause principle of State ("No religion shall have a state character), and just then considered as the only valid religious beliefs, even going to legitimize relations with a particular institution, listed under name, which stands as representative of a particular religious belief ("The public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs English society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions. ") And you and I cry: What? Do the beliefs that can not be considered religious do not deserve the same consideration? Pierre Bayle and demonstrated, and we have explained in the book, that the spectrum of belief human can not be reduced to various religious beliefs, like the religions no longer existed a total lack of conviction. In his book Thoughts on the different comet (XVIII text) takes a simple idea, but powerful: in the same way that religious believers have been criminals, atheists have been virtuous. Bayle did not mean that the only alternative to belief beyond atheism. His thoughts went far beyond. What I wanted to show was that the defense of human values \u200b\u200bwas not necessarily based on religious belief, as some thinkers of his time clerical intended. A believer can be virtuous, but also can be an atheist, an agnostic a Lamaist or a Buddhist, or even someone whose beliefs are not recognized by any preset cliché.
.
Of course, if the English Constitution is a reflection of this reductionism would restrict the whole possible range of convictions and beliefs, it is even more the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980, and Penal Code, as set out with a unbeatable.
.
.
However, if we want to be strict with the language we use, I can not agree with you when to extend this critique of the concept of "spiritual freedom" that we propose in our book (and corresponding "options espirituales”). Dice que la llamada libertad espiritual es una noción completamente paralela a la llamada “libertad religiosa”, y por lo tanto, cómplice de la misma. Y un poco más adelante añale que utilizar la expresión “libertad espiritual” no solo reproduce este razonamiento restrictivo y opresivo, sino que lo agudiza.
.
En primer lugar, he de advertir que el libro lo hemos escrito como filósofos de la laicidad, y no como polemistas. Así lo hemos puesto de manifiesto en la última frase del prólogo. Un filósofo tiene que ser muy riguroso con los conceptos que utiliza y no caer en el error de traicionar el sentido genuino de los términos por culpa de different historical prejudices. The term "spirituality" does not refer primarily to the "religion." And in Greek philosophy, before the formation of the systematic corpus of the three great monotheistic religions, there are examples of forms of spirituality inherent to human being, requiring no transcendent reference. Such is the case of Epicurus, who rejected the finalism providential and all divine intervention in human affairs, making pleasure the only beginning and end of human action (see text of our book IV). And yet explained how it can be the most virtuous of men. In this regard, if wants, "spirituality" is ontologically and historically prior to religion as we understand it now.
.
En primer lugar, he de advertir que el libro lo hemos escrito como filósofos de la laicidad, y no como polemistas. Así lo hemos puesto de manifiesto en la última frase del prólogo. Un filósofo tiene que ser muy riguroso con los conceptos que utiliza y no caer en el error de traicionar el sentido genuino de los términos por culpa de different historical prejudices. The term "spirituality" does not refer primarily to the "religion." And in Greek philosophy, before the formation of the systematic corpus of the three great monotheistic religions, there are examples of forms of spirituality inherent to human being, requiring no transcendent reference. Such is the case of Epicurus, who rejected the finalism providential and all divine intervention in human affairs, making pleasure the only beginning and end of human action (see text of our book IV). And yet explained how it can be the most virtuous of men. In this regard, if wants, "spirituality" is ontologically and historically prior to religion as we understand it now.
.
Therefore, to identify spirituality with religion or religious language is the victim of a deeply rooted historical prejudice in Spain nacionalcatolicismo the sad tradition of Franco's regime still remains very much alive in many aspects of English society. Only from bigoted and biased thinking that is the product of that education Restrictive admit that "spirituality" is a parallel concept of "religion." Even we are victims of this confusion, because the term "spirituality" sounds to us immediately religion, specifically Catholicism, because of that historical prejudice rooted in our tradition.
.
is necessary to explain, from the distanced plane of philosophy, the sense we use the term "spirituality." Understand spirituality a way to transcend the merely material providing a certain sense of our being and acting in the world. The spirituality lies in the consciousness, which is what distinguishes us from other beings on earth (I can not escape the complexities of the philosophical problem the duality of matter / spirit, which is a reformulation of the problem brain / mind). Only human beings have consciousness, and because she is able to give his existence a certain sense. Every human being develops his spirituality in some way. Now there are many ways to give meaning to our existence and what we do with it. In other words, there are many forms of spirituality is only one religion, but not unique. Hence, we consider spirituality as a natural characteristic, essential, human, and not religion. Religion is not the only way of expressing human spirituality, and of course, need not be (Far) more excellent than others. The German philosopher Hegel said that the Spirit was developed through three things: art, philosophy and religion. I do not mean to say that Hegel was right, or just to develop the spiritual life through these three things. But I do subscribe to the intuition that Hegel had to show that religion is only one way among others to develop the spiritual life. In short, religion and religious beliefs have no monopoly on spirituality. Using Aristotelian terminology, one could say that spirituality is the "genre" of no religious belief is more than a "kind".
.
is necessary to explain, from the distanced plane of philosophy, the sense we use the term "spirituality." Understand spirituality a way to transcend the merely material providing a certain sense of our being and acting in the world. The spirituality lies in the consciousness, which is what distinguishes us from other beings on earth (I can not escape the complexities of the philosophical problem the duality of matter / spirit, which is a reformulation of the problem brain / mind). Only human beings have consciousness, and because she is able to give his existence a certain sense. Every human being develops his spirituality in some way. Now there are many ways to give meaning to our existence and what we do with it. In other words, there are many forms of spirituality is only one religion, but not unique. Hence, we consider spirituality as a natural characteristic, essential, human, and not religion. Religion is not the only way of expressing human spirituality, and of course, need not be (Far) more excellent than others. The German philosopher Hegel said that the Spirit was developed through three things: art, philosophy and religion. I do not mean to say that Hegel was right, or just to develop the spiritual life through these three things. But I do subscribe to the intuition that Hegel had to show that religion is only one way among others to develop the spiritual life. In short, religion and religious beliefs have no monopoly on spirituality. Using Aristotelian terminology, one could say that spirituality is the "genre" of no religious belief is more than a "kind".
.
Therefore, the identification that you report in our approach between "spiritual freedom" and "religious freedom", making them accomplices in an absurd reduction of the wide spectrum of beliefs that lie or could lie in the human consciousness, has no foundation other than the confusion of the National-clerical tradition in Spain has created in the collective imagination. It is therefore designed such confusion as a historical bias that goes against the true meaning of the terms "spirituality" and "religion." Spiritual freedom, therefore, identifies with "Freedom of conscience" and not "religious freedom", a term absurd, misleading and restrictive (as well has shown you), as would the term "freedom atheist" or "freedom agnostic."
.
.
understand that some expressions out of context of our book will enable them to interpret our analysis shows that there are no more options spiritual than religious belief (as if there were no non-religious beliefs), atheism and agnosticism. Perhaps at the time of writing the book, in some part, have also been victims of this historical bias. However, a reading Overall the book makes clear that spiritual freedom or freedom of conscience includes believers, any sign, atheists and agnostics. Of course, there are ways of belief are not necessarily tied to belief in a personal God, unit, etc. You quote the Lamaism or animism. There are even forms of belief that are embedded within a materialistic approach. Marx, for example, an activist in favor of real equality between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat that would end the class struggle in society from the perspective of historical materialism, which reinterpreted Hegel's dialectical materialism (we must not forget that defense of moral values, as freedom, equality, etc. no longer a way to give meaning to our actions and our being in the world, and therefore beyond the mere realm of the material). For Marx, the basis of this search for equality did not come from a transcendental instance ("Religion is the opium of the people"), but of the inherent design of the human being as the bearer of some natural rights, including the right to dispose of their own workforce and its product, which were being violated by the progressive industrial capitalism. Marx believed in equality. So, you pose the question: "The lively community of Nigeria does not believe in God, but numinous beings, Are atheists or agnostics? ". I would have no problem in considering them within the Christian spiritual choice, although that kind of belief does not correspond to the belief in the Christian God. So when we say there are three main options (spiritual beliefs of any sign, atheism and agnosticism) do not believe that fall into the simplistic reductionism that you report. We have even advocated the same as you, through the texts of D'Holbach and Bayle, when reporting that atheism can not be considered as a purely negative option (not believe), as if atheists lacked positive views about moral virtue or philosophy. Worth for Marx. All the atheists would be shocked if you were to suggest that not believing in God means believing in nothing, Dovstoievski style ("If God does not exist, everything is permitted ..") The defenders of secularism, if we want to be consistent, we must give a Dovstoievski slap on and those who advocate that the scope of the belief is confined to religious belief. I think you'll agree with me perfectly at this point.
.
If I have explained well, there will be clear that when we use the term "spiritual freedom" (and the three great spiritual options), in a strict sense, apart from certain times historical prejudices and places, we are referring to a universal principle inherent in secular thought, which is not far adhered to no brace or cast particularist, such as the theological language.
.
are further answered the criticism that finds the roots of this expression in Augustine's theological language (I would not have ever beatified: see text XII), which raises the dichotomy spiritual world / underworld. The term "spiritual freedom" and its meaning is not within the theological approach of Augustine of Hippo (in this case would have been legitimate criticism that you raise in denouncing the principles of thought secularist remain "closeted in the language of theology.") It should rather be understood within the dichotomy of matter / spirit, which is a philosophical and not theological, as I have tried to briefly above.
.
other hand, you criticize the idea that religion is linked to autonomy of the spiritual world with respect to the temporal world. Religion, while believing that unites the faithful freely around some dogmas and worship to a particular, not be confused with clericalism, which is the illegitimate political drift of religion, namely, the pursuit of domination of one particular religion on public sphere through the acquisition of public power. A clear example of clericalism in Spain, we have continued statements and actions of the English Episcopal Conference. But we must not fall into the error of identifying the English Episcopal Conference with all the Catholic faithful of Spain. Not surprisingly, many English Catholics do not feel represented by a fan and clerical body that is far from what should be a religion. You hear everywhere the imprint "I believe in God, but not priests."
.
.
If I have explained well, there will be clear that when we use the term "spiritual freedom" (and the three great spiritual options), in a strict sense, apart from certain times historical prejudices and places, we are referring to a universal principle inherent in secular thought, which is not far adhered to no brace or cast particularist, such as the theological language.
.
are further answered the criticism that finds the roots of this expression in Augustine's theological language (I would not have ever beatified: see text XII), which raises the dichotomy spiritual world / underworld. The term "spiritual freedom" and its meaning is not within the theological approach of Augustine of Hippo (in this case would have been legitimate criticism that you raise in denouncing the principles of thought secularist remain "closeted in the language of theology.") It should rather be understood within the dichotomy of matter / spirit, which is a philosophical and not theological, as I have tried to briefly above.
.
other hand, you criticize the idea that religion is linked to autonomy of the spiritual world with respect to the temporal world. Religion, while believing that unites the faithful freely around some dogmas and worship to a particular, not be confused with clericalism, which is the illegitimate political drift of religion, namely, the pursuit of domination of one particular religion on public sphere through the acquisition of public power. A clear example of clericalism in Spain, we have continued statements and actions of the English Episcopal Conference. But we must not fall into the error of identifying the English Episcopal Conference with all the Catholic faithful of Spain. Not surprisingly, many English Catholics do not feel represented by a fan and clerical body that is far from what should be a religion. You hear everywhere the imprint "I believe in God, but not priests."
.
Secularism, in order to enforce equal treatment of all spiritual beliefs or options, must fight clericalism all seeking to hold temporal power of the ideological underpinnings of a particular creed. We have to distinguish between religion and clericalism. Secularism is not against religion, just as there is against atheism or any other spiritual choice, but is against all forms of clericalism. Clericalism, the sign that is, is by definition a "political instrumentalization of any particular ideology (including religion), and therefore violates the principle of freedom of conscience or spiritual freedom, and against the principle of equality treatment of all citizens, regardless of the option spiritual to freely accede.
. Many religious believers, who live their belief as an "intimate persuasion of his conscience" (Bayle), within the limits of privacy, would be offended when you suggested that "religions (particularly monotheistic) are political, nothing more than political and purely political. " Without going any further, other authors included in our anthology, Leopoldo Alas "Clarín" explained how this can be an advocate for the principles of secularism without ceasing to be Catholic, simply separating the private and public spheres, and confining the experience of Catholic religion to the private sphere. Victor Hugo, Catholic confessed, saying "I want the State to its own, and to his Church." E Immanuel Kant, Protestant pietistic clericalist denounced the practice of historic Christianity (what he called "the black book of historic Christianity"), which had nothing to do with what should be the genuine experience of the Christian religion, regardless of all clericalism.
.
Only in this sense, secularism, and the political project of democracy, should take into account the "autonomy of the spiritual order": Everyone is free to follow their own convictions, which can never be imposed nor prohibited. In this sense a confessional state that recognizes an official religion, is "tarnishing the autonomy of the spiritual" in the sense that it is imposing a particular option to all citizens. The English state, from my point of view, remains a religious state, as illegitimate government continues to grant privileges to the Catholic Church to make, though not "impose"-in the strong sense of the word religion to citizens and not being Catholic does not prohibit, it "guides", I am using this term too lenient, the consciousness in a very determined and very "bad faith "in the Sartrean sense of the term (think of the existence of Catholic religious instruction in schools and public institutions, professors of religion made by the bishops finger, and paid with public money).
.
.
Only in this sense, secularism, and the political project of democracy, should take into account the "autonomy of the spiritual order": Everyone is free to follow their own convictions, which can never be imposed nor prohibited. In this sense a confessional state that recognizes an official religion, is "tarnishing the autonomy of the spiritual" in the sense that it is imposing a particular option to all citizens. The English state, from my point of view, remains a religious state, as illegitimate government continues to grant privileges to the Catholic Church to make, though not "impose"-in the strong sense of the word religion to citizens and not being Catholic does not prohibit, it "guides", I am using this term too lenient, the consciousness in a very determined and very "bad faith "in the Sartrean sense of the term (think of the existence of Catholic religious instruction in schools and public institutions, professors of religion made by the bishops finger, and paid with public money).
.
political order can not interfere, therefore, the different experiences of particular beliefs, which must remain at all times within the scope of individual freedom, provided that these particular beliefs remain within the limits set by the universal principles justice and human rights. And here there is no discrepancy between what you propose and what we have outlined in the book. I identify fully with his words when he says that in a democratic, secular, it is important to respect the principle of non interference by public authorities in matters of conscience ... "but this is an unavoidable requirement while such groups do not commit crimes and not to restrain the human rights. And if they do, not only the intervention is legitimate but is required by those who are violated. And here there can be no emergency treatment or privileges because they have a spiritual character. " Obviously, when an act violates the universal principles of justice or human rights, the act ceases to have a private, and becomes a public, but takes place within a religious community. This is precisely the argument that was used in France to ban public schools of the Republic the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious signs. In the case of Spain is even clearer: in a forum recently I expressed my view that the English Episcopal Conference, and his spokesman Martinez Camino, should be judged by some of his public statements. For example, when the Catholic deputies warned that if, in exercising their role as Members (public sphere), defend or do nothing at the proposal for reform of abortion law will be committing "public sin" and are to exist for "heresy" and will be punished, I understand that beyond the limits of freedom of expression, a right enshrined in the constitution. Pretending to retrieve the terms "heresy" or "public sin" within a religious community seems too dangerous to be overlooked, but if that's not tolerable, seeking to rescue their binding power in the field of exercise of the duty in the public domain so blatantly crosses all boundaries of what should be tolerated.
.
I invite you to read an article by Fernando Savater less rigorous and informative nature of what he usually does, entitled "Is it tolerable religious tolerance?", published in the journal Isegoría 39. Journal of Moral and Political Philosophy. This article Savater supports exactly the same as you and me: it is important to tolerate different spiritual options. But there are limits. For example, when the clergy lobbyists who stand as representatives of a religion claim that biology classes in college are given a kind of creation, rather than studying the theory of evolution, then tolerance is far less convincing. In my book, should we tolerate it?, expose the same idea, namely that tolerance is a virtue only when not exceed the limits that separate the service. "Tolerating" outrages against human dignity, the freedom of having one's convictions and free, or "tolerate" public threats that continuously poured over the media senior representatives of the Catholic Church in Spain is no longer a virtue. It becomes a habit. In order to consider ourselves tolerant have to be very clear about boundaries that can not happen, and if you cross is legitimate from the point of view of justice does not tolerate.
.
agree with you when reporting to certain political parties today (The PSOE between them) that do not look for trouble, disturb the true meaning of "autonomy of the spiritual realm, making it a kind of permissiveness all where anything goes if it comes disguised in the garb of religion, even the most serious attempts of violating human rights. Accordingly, I believe for example that we should not remain indifferent to the statements of Angel Gabilondo, minister of education, when faced with the question of the relevance to ban crucifixes in public schools, said the decision should be adopted by each particular school. Shocking and intolerable lack of public accountability.
. Thanking
de nuevo su reflexión crítica, espero haber intentado explicar mi posición en esta controversia, que considero eminentemente conceptual, con la mayor claridad posible.
.
I invite you to read an article by Fernando Savater less rigorous and informative nature of what he usually does, entitled "Is it tolerable religious tolerance?", published in the journal Isegoría 39. Journal of Moral and Political Philosophy. This article Savater supports exactly the same as you and me: it is important to tolerate different spiritual options. But there are limits. For example, when the clergy lobbyists who stand as representatives of a religion claim that biology classes in college are given a kind of creation, rather than studying the theory of evolution, then tolerance is far less convincing. In my book, should we tolerate it?, expose the same idea, namely that tolerance is a virtue only when not exceed the limits that separate the service. "Tolerating" outrages against human dignity, the freedom of having one's convictions and free, or "tolerate" public threats that continuously poured over the media senior representatives of the Catholic Church in Spain is no longer a virtue. It becomes a habit. In order to consider ourselves tolerant have to be very clear about boundaries that can not happen, and if you cross is legitimate from the point of view of justice does not tolerate.
.
agree with you when reporting to certain political parties today (The PSOE between them) that do not look for trouble, disturb the true meaning of "autonomy of the spiritual realm, making it a kind of permissiveness all where anything goes if it comes disguised in the garb of religion, even the most serious attempts of violating human rights. Accordingly, I believe for example that we should not remain indifferent to the statements of Angel Gabilondo, minister of education, when faced with the question of the relevance to ban crucifixes in public schools, said the decision should be adopted by each particular school. Shocking and intolerable lack of public accountability.
. Thanking
de nuevo su reflexión crítica, espero haber intentado explicar mi posición en esta controversia, que considero eminentemente conceptual, con la mayor claridad posible.
.
VER LA RESPUESTA A CÉSAR TEJEDOR DE LA IGLESIA:
0 comments:
Post a Comment