Page 134 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 134 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
132
provision for other faiths. I discuss this case because it instantiates two of the issues I raised above: the first, that the separation of religion and state is not a requirement for toleration, but recognition of pluralism is. Secondly, well-meaning but ill-conceived initiatives can actually further intolerance. In the case of the Archbishop, the two intersect. He also raises the same issues as Jeremy Waldron does in his essay “Toleration and Reasonableness.” Can the deepest core beliefs held by a person be relegated to the “private” sphere? Can the private and public spheres be so easily demarcated?
Among the liberal democracies, the U.K. does not have an official separation of religion and state. There is an official religion, that of the Church of England. The Crown is the head of the Church. The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy but real power lies in Parliament. Nonetheless some 20 bishops are automatically appointed unelected to the House of Lords.
There are two senses in which the separation of religion and state is not required for toleration. One is the mere fact that I have cited above, that there is an official religion, yet various efforts on the part of different agents to promote toleration have been underway for some time now. Thus the existence of an official religion is not an impediment to the striving for a tolerant, pluralist society.
Object Description
| Title | Negotiating pluralism and tribalism in liberal democratic societies |
| Author | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Author email | sadagopa@usc.edu; shobasadagopan@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Philosophy |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-22 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-15 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Lloyd, Sharon |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Dreher, John Keating, Gregory |
| Abstract | My aim in this dissertation is to enquire whether toleration as a practice is achievable. It is prior to the question of how it can be grounded as a virtue. I argue that in liberal democratic societies where there are struggles for recognition on the part of ethnocultural groups, it is possible to negotiate pluralism and tribalism in a way that a stable pluralist society can be maintained. My core thesis rests on a theory of interdependence based both on a theory of human nature and on the material fact of globalization. Insofar as we affirm our nature as human beings engaged in productive activity with other human beings, insofar as we value a world that facilitates that activity, toleration is desirable. It is achievable because with globalization there is a tendency towards homogenization that erodes cultural differences. There is less reason for conflict because what we have in common, our interdependence, goes far deeper than culture. A further sufficient condition may be found in well thought-out policies that are executed through education and dialogue. |
| Keyword | toleration; value pluralism; liberalism; cultural homogenization; globalization; common citizenship |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1658 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Sadagopan-2395 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Sadagopan-2395.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 134 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 132 provision for other faiths. I discuss this case because it instantiates two of the issues I raised above: the first, that the separation of religion and state is not a requirement for toleration, but recognition of pluralism is. Secondly, well-meaning but ill-conceived initiatives can actually further intolerance. In the case of the Archbishop, the two intersect. He also raises the same issues as Jeremy Waldron does in his essay “Toleration and Reasonableness.” Can the deepest core beliefs held by a person be relegated to the “private” sphere? Can the private and public spheres be so easily demarcated? Among the liberal democracies, the U.K. does not have an official separation of religion and state. There is an official religion, that of the Church of England. The Crown is the head of the Church. The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy but real power lies in Parliament. Nonetheless some 20 bishops are automatically appointed unelected to the House of Lords. There are two senses in which the separation of religion and state is not required for toleration. One is the mere fact that I have cited above, that there is an official religion, yet various efforts on the part of different agents to promote toleration have been underway for some time now. Thus the existence of an official religion is not an impediment to the striving for a tolerant, pluralist society. |
