Marburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2003.

Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss., 2006 / Erscheinungsjahr an der Hauptitelstelle: 2005

No description available.

No description available.

Univ., Diss.--Heidelberg, 2006. / Literaturverz. S. [161] - 169.

In 2003 the German constitutional court passed a law that made it possible for federal states in Germany to ban the headscarf for teachers in school which led several of them to do just that. After an indictment of two Muslim women the constitutional court repealed this law and allowed teachers to wear a headscarf in school 2015. This essay takes its starting point in the medial debate that resulted from this court decision. The aim of this study was to examine this debate with a starting point in the general statements and against the background of parts of Casanovas theory of deprivatization and parts of Habermas theories of religion in the public sphere. The first research question asks about central themes in the debate, the used arguments and how they differ between the laws supporter and opponents. The second research question addresses the issue of which role the debaters assign religion in the state. The third question is about how the statements can be better understood by relating them to parts of the theoretical concepts used for this study. This essay investigates these research questions by applying the method of content analysis on eleven debate articles of four major German newspapers. Through the interaction of theories and material the three central themes relation between religion and state, liberalism and freedom of religion could be identified. Some arguments on these themes which were common include the classification of religion as something negative or positive in the public sphere, the denial of religious individuals to meet liberal requirements and the requirement of equality which is guaranteed by freedom of religion. While this study shows that the debaters share some common views on the themes, there are clear differences between the laws supporter and opponents. Furthermore, this study concludes that while the laws supporter assign religion a role in the public sphere, the laws opponents assign religion to the private sphere even if some of them preferably would like to only assign Islam to the private sphere. Through contemplation of the results by using the chosen theories the understanding of them could be increased.

A crítica de Habermas à União Europeia no que concerne seu processo político de integração é de inegável importância na contribuição tanto do pensamento habermasiano quanto dos estudos europeus. Partindo-se desta premissa, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo abordar cronologicamente toda a reflexão do filósofo a fim de apresentar suas críticas nos momentos cruciais do bloco. Inicialmente, analisa-se o diagnóstico do autor do paradigma sistêmico no período de formação da união política, e sua resposta aos desafios do bloco à época: o patriotismo constitucional. Segue-se com os momentos da discussão do Tratado Constitucional e a inflexão da crítica habermasiana ao introduzir o conceito de solidariedade como perspectiva para as turbulências vividas pela União Europeia. Por fim, trata-se da crítica mais recente do filósofo com relação à atual estrutura política, firmada em Lisboa. Sua narrativa da juridificação democrática elucida como arquitetar uma teoria democrática transnacional que atenda às deficiências que o projeto de integração revelou. Ao final será esclarecido como Habermas enxerga as saídas da legitimidade democrática ao longo da integração europeia, sempre acompanhando o diagnóstico do autor seguido de suas respostas. / Habermas\'s criticism of the European Union (EU) in what regards its political process of integration is of undeniable importance in the contribution for both Habermas and European studies. In this regard, the present work aims to address chronologically the considerations of the philosopher in order to present his point of views regarding crucial moments of the EU development. Initially, we analyze Habermass diagnosis of a systemic paradigm within the period of the EUs political union formation, followed by his response to the challenges of the organization at the time, giving rise to the concept of constitutional patriotism. The work continues with the period of the discussion of the Constitutional Treaty and the turning point of the Habermasian critique by introducing the notion of solidarity as a perspective for the turbulences experienced by the EU. Finally, we turn to the author\'s more recent critique of the current political structure, established by the Lisbon Treaty. His narrative of democratic juridification elucidates how to architect a transnational democratic theory that meets the deficiencies that the integration project revealed. Finally it will be clarified how Habermas may explain possible perspectives for democratic legitimacy throughout European integration, always through the diagnosis made by the author, followed by his answers to the given problem.

A crítica de Habermas à União Europeia no que concerne seu processo político de integração é de inegável importância na contribuição tanto do pensamento habermasiano quanto dos estudos europeus. Partindo-se desta premissa, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo abordar cronologicamente toda a reflexão do filósofo a fim de apresentar suas críticas nos momentos cruciais do bloco. Inicialmente, analisa-se o diagnóstico do autor do paradigma sistêmico no período de formação da união política, e sua resposta aos desafios do bloco à época: o patriotismo constitucional. Segue-se com os momentos da discussão do Tratado Constitucional e a inflexão da crítica habermasiana ao introduzir o conceito de solidariedade como perspectiva para as turbulências vividas pela União Europeia. Por fim, trata-se da crítica mais recente do filósofo com relação à atual estrutura política, firmada em Lisboa. Sua narrativa da juridificação democrática elucida como arquitetar uma teoria democrática transnacional que atenda às deficiências que o projeto de integração revelou. Ao final será esclarecido como Habermas enxerga as saídas da legitimidade democrática ao longo da integração europeia, sempre acompanhando o diagnóstico do autor seguido de suas respostas. / Habermas\'s criticism of the European Union (EU) in what regards its political process of integration is of undeniable importance in the contribution for both Habermas and European studies. In this regard, the present work aims to address chronologically the considerations of the philosopher in order to present his point of views regarding crucial moments of the EU development. Initially, we analyze Habermass diagnosis of a systemic paradigm within the period of the EUs political union formation, followed by his response to the challenges of the organization at the time, giving rise to the concept of constitutional patriotism. The work continues with the period of the discussion of the Constitutional Treaty and the turning point of the Habermasian critique by introducing the notion of solidarity as a perspective for the turbulences experienced by the EU. Finally, we turn to the author\'s more recent critique of the current political structure, established by the Lisbon Treaty. His narrative of democratic juridification elucidates how to architect a transnational democratic theory that meets the deficiencies that the integration project revealed. Finally it will be clarified how Habermas may explain possible perspectives for democratic legitimacy throughout European integration, always through the diagnosis made by the author, followed by his answers to the given problem.

Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 2008. / Bibliogr. : f. 99-102. Publié aussi en version électronique dans la Collection Mémoires et thèses électroniques.

CoordenaÃÃo de AperfeiÃoamento de Pessoal de NÃvel Superior / For Habermas, religious and metaphysical doctrines lost centrality in modern societies, which is the reason why the critical and reflexive potentials of language were released at the cost of giving rise to a irreconciliable plurality of lifeforms. Democracy must be the space where pluralism reflects the freedom of everyone to develop her cultural potentials without enduring opression, but also without control of other conceptions of thought and action. The duty of tolerance appears in this context when there is no expectation of agreement on ethical evaluative criteria of the good life and means that agents must resort to a moral agreement on the intersubjectively valid behaviour on the basis of assumptions of a human rights regime, which includes cultural rights. The research begins by inserting tolerance into the political context of the theory of normative models of democracy by Habermas, these models themselves involved in the debate between liberal and communitarians, more specifically having liberalism represented by John Rawls on the one side, and republicanism by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor on the other. By studying Habermas theories of communicative rationality, of modernity and of discourse, one can find support for overcoming liberal and republican views in the viewpoint of a deliberative democracy based on discourses. As Habermas considers democracy a process, he longs to include difference without imposing cultural and historical conceptions of the good on the procedural communicative normative standards. By integrating the perspective of the right in deliberative debates Habermas does not keep them away from democractic will and collective values. The liberal principles of the priority of the right over the good and of ethical neutrality are determined by collective processes of will and opinion formation. In this context, Habermas conception of tolerance permitts citizens to reject each otherÂs life forms, alhtough imposing them to do it in a way that does not contradict moral standards of respect, which avoid discrimiation and authorize the self-realization of cultural life forms compatible with equal liberties for all; they are also obligated to coexist with the rejected life form if it is morally protected by what is stablished in a public consensus, deliberatively reached with recourse of discourses in the public spheres. / Para Habermas, sociedades modernas perderam a centralidade de doutrinas religiosas e metafÃsicas, liberando os potenciais de uma linguagem crÃtica e reflexiva, ao preÃo, porÃm, de uma inconciliÃvel pluralidade de formas de vida. A democracia deve ser o espaÃo onde o pluralismo reflita a liberdade de cada um em desenvolver seus potenciais culturais, sem a opressÃo contra suas necessidades, mas sem permitir-lhe o controle de outras concepÃÃes do pensar e do agir. O dever de tolerÃncia surge, neste quadro, quando nÃo hà expectativa de um acordo acerca dos critÃrios Ãtico-valorativos da boa vida, recorrendo os agentes a um consenso moral acerca do comportamento intersubjetivamente vÃlido segundo os pressupostos de uma ordem de direitos humanos, da qual fazem parte direitos culturais. Iniciamos a investigaÃÃo desta teoria colocando a tolerÃncia dentro do contexto polÃtico da teoria dos modelos normativos de democracia em Habermas, associando-os ao debate entre liberais e comunitaristas, mais especificamente, entendendo o liberalismo a partir de John Rawls, de um lado, e o republicanismo a partir de Michael Sandel e Charles Taylor, de outro. Ao investigarmos as teorias de Habermas sobre a racionalidade comunicativa, a teoria da modernidade e a teoria do discurso, encontramos o suporte para superar visÃes liberais e republicanas a partir do ponto de vista de uma democracia deliberativa, baseada em discursos. Ao entender a democracia enquanto um processo, Habermas procura incluir a diferenÃa, sem submeter padrÃes comunicativos procedimentais e a proteÃÃo moral do indivÃduo Ãs concepÃÃes histÃrico-culturais do Bom; integrando a perspectiva do Justo aos debates deliberativos, Habermas nÃo os fixa para longe da vontade democrÃtica nem dos valores coletivos. Os princÃpios liberais da Prioridade do Justo sobre o Bom e da neutralidade Ãtica sÃo determinados a partir de processos coletivos de formaÃÃo da opiniÃo e da vontade. Neste contexto, a concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em Habermas permite que cidadÃos rejeitem a forma de vida uns dos outros, mas obriga-os a fazÃ-lo de modo que nÃo contrarie padrÃes morais de respeito que evitam a discriminaÃÃo, permitindo a autorrealizaÃÃo das formas de vida culturais compatÃveis com as liberdades de todos; ademais, sÃo obrigados a aceitar conviver com a forma de vida rejeitada, se esta for moralmente protegida, segundo o que se estabelece em um consenso pÃblico, deliberativamente alcanÃado a partir dos discursos nas esferas pÃblicas.