Negli Stati Uniti la proposta di costruire una moschea a Ground Zero ha determinato una accesa controversia tra favorevoli e contrari.
I primi, tra i quali il sindaco Bloomberg e lo stesso presidente Obama , hanno invocato i principi costituzionali di libertà religiosa e di tolleranza.
Però il richiamo di Obama a tali principi presta il fianco ad obiezioni fondamentali. In realtà libertà e tolleranza non solo possono ma devono essere limitate e regolate. Va poi sottolineato che le religioni sono molto diverse tra loro quanto a contenuti ed effetti sul piano sociale, culturale, istituzionale e perfino economico.
Solo regole e limiti possono garantire a tutti uguale libertà e tolleranza. Ed ancora solo rules and limits may prevent freedom and tolerance are the cause of their destruction.
One of the most lucid and influential liberal intellectuals of the twentieth century, Karl Popper writes in Open Society and Its Enemies , note 4 to chapter seven of the first volume:
"If we extend the ' unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are unwilling to defend a tolerant society against the 'attack of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. "
"We should therefore proclaim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. In short we should proclaim that every movement that preaches' intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider the crimes as' incitement to 'intolerance and persecution, we consider that a crime the' incitement to 'murder, or restoration of the rat slave trade. "
is also very important to emphasize that not all religions are compatible with free institutions and open society . Today 's need to observe the canons of political correctness "takes precedence over respect for the truth. But it's not always been the 'prevailing approach. The major precursors of liberal thought were not dominated by these concerns. The words of
Tocqueville in Democracy in America , the third book, Part One, Chapter Five:
"... not only religious doctrines in the Koran, but political maxims, laws Civil and criminal and scientific theories. The Gospel, however, speaks only of the general relations of men with God and each other. Apart from this it does not teach anything and does not force you to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand other reasons, is enough to show that the first of those two religions can not dominate for a long time ... democracy, while the second is destined to reign in these centuries as in all others. "
And before him, Montesquieu in the second volume, the fifth part, twenty-fourth book, the third and fourth chapters Spirit of Laws :
"With regard to the character of the Christian religion and that of the Muslim religion, it is certainly 'more embrace the' one and reject the 'other: because for us it is much more evident that a religion should soften the manners of men, than it is obvious that one religion is true.
It 's a disgrace to human nature that Religion is given by a conqueror. The Mohammedan religion, which does not speak of that sword, affects more men with that destructive spirit that 'he founded.
The Christian religion is far from pure despotism: in fact, being the mild so highly recommended in the Gospel, it is opposed to the despotic rage with which the prince would do justice and practice his cruelties.
..... we need to Christianity in the government a certain political rights, and war a certain law of nations, of which 'humanity can never be grateful enough. "
The open society and free institutions need strong defenders and attentive. Without them even the most solid bulwarks fall.
0 comments:
Post a Comment