Laikliğin Gerekliliği Argümanlarının Eleştirisi

Laikliğin gerekçeleri halkın genelliliğine hitap eden yasa ve icraatların kamu aklı, pratik bilgelik, bilimsel bulgular ve bu tarz objektif yöntem ve sonuçlar doğrultusunda şekillenen bir fikir birliğinin ürünü olması gerektiği ve dinin bu yöntem ve sonuçlar arasında yer almadığı çünkü dinin öznel, doğrulanamaz ve otoriter olduğu argümanlarına dayanır. Bu makalede bu tarz görüşler modern demokratik rejimlerin yasa ve icraatların benimsenmesinde fikir birliği gibi bir şart aramadığı, son birkaç yılda yaşanan insani felaketlerin dinden değil bilakis rasyonalist ve materyalist düşünce akımlarından beslenen olay ve hareketlerin sonucu olduğu, laiklik kavramının Protestan eğilimli bir dünya görüşünün ürünü olduğu, dinin tarihi bir perspektifle oldukça hümanist ve demokratik bir kurum olduğu ve dinin kamusal alandan çıkarılmasının temel bir insan hakkı olarak inanç özgürlüğüne aykırı olduğu argümanlarıyla eleştirilmektedir

MAKING A CRITIQUE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS OF SECULARISM

Justifications of secularism rely on the arguments that the laws and the policies addressing to the generality of the public must be the product of consensus among the people that develop through public reason, practical wisdom, conclusions of science and such objective methods and results, and that the religion does not qualify like any of these because the religion is subjective, unverifiable and authoritarian. Such views are criticized in this article with the arguments that the modern democratic regimes don’t oblige public consensus in the production of laws and policies, that it wasn’t religion but rationalism and materialism that fed the most horrible human catastrophes of the last few centuries, that secularism suffers from an explicit Protestant bias, that religion has historically been a highly humanist and democratic institution, and that removal of religion from the public space violates the freedom of belief as a basic human right

___

Audi, R. (1993). The place of religious arguments in a free and democratic society. San Diego Law Review 30: 677-702.

Bader, V. (2003). Taking religious pluralism seriously, arguing for an institutional turn. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6: 3-22.

Bader, V. (March 2011). Religion and the myths of secularization and separation. Palgrave Working Paper 8: 1-32.

Cassanova, J. (2008). The problem of the religion and the anxieties of the European secular democracy. In Religion and Democracy in Contemporary Europe, eds. Gabriel Motzkin and Yocki Fischer. London: Alliance Publishing Trust, 63-74.

Fish, S. (December 1997). Mission impossible: Settling the just bounds between church and state. Columbia Law Review 97(8): 2255-333.

Gill, A. (2007). The political origins of religious liberty. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Greenawalt, K. (1995). Private consciences and public reasons. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hollenbach, D. S. J. 1993). Contexts of the Political role of religion: Civil society and culture. San Diego Law Review 30: 887-901.

Locke, J. (2011). John Locke, The Works Vol.5 Four Letters Concerning Toleration. Indianapolis: Liberty Funds. Inc.

Philpott, D. (2007). Explaining the political ambivalence of religion. American Political Science Review 101(3): 505-25.

Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7(1): 1-25.

Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A Restatement, ed. Eren Kelly. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwarzschild, M. (1993). Religion and public debate in a liberal society: Always oil and water or sometimes more like Rum and Coca-Cola?. San Diego Law Review 30: 903-15.

Stephan, A. C. (2000). Religion, democracy and the twin tolerations. Journal of Democracy 11(4): 37-57.

Waldron, J. (1993). Religious contributions in public deliberation. San Diego Law Review 30: 817-48.