• Complain

Marcello Pera - Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies

Here you can read online Marcello Pera - Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2011, publisher: Encounter Books, genre: Religion. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:

Romance novel Science fiction Adventure Detective Science History Home and family Prose Art Politics Computer Non-fiction Religion Business Children Humor

Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.

No cover
  • Book:
    Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies
  • Author:
  • Publisher:
    Encounter Books
  • Genre:
  • Year:
    2011
  • Rating:
    5 / 5
  • Favourites:
    Add to favourites
  • Your mark:
    • 100
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies: summary, description and annotation

We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.

The intellectual and political elite of the West is nowadays taking for granted that religion, in particular Christianity, is a cultural vestige, a primitive form of knowledge, a consolation for the poor minded, an obstacle to coexistence. In all influential environments, the widespread watchword is We are all secular or We are all post-religious. As a consequence, we are told that states must be independent of religious creed, politics must take a neutral stance regarding religious values, and societies must hold together without any reference to religious bonds. Liberalism, which in some form or another is the prevailing view in the West, is considered to be free-standing, and the Western, liberal, open society is taken to be self-sufficient.
Not only is anti-Christian secularism wrong, it is also risky. Its wrong because the very ideas on which liberal societies are based and in terms of which they can be justifiedthe concept of the dignity of the human person, the moral priority of the individual, the view that man is a crooked timber inclined to prevarication, the limited confidence in the power of the state to render him virtuousare typical Christian or, more precisely, Judeo-Christian ideas. Take them away and the open society will collapse. Anti-Christian secularism is risky because it jeopardizes the identity of the West, leaves it with no self-conscience, and deprives people of their sense of belonging. The Founding Fathers of America, as well as major intellectual European figures such as Locke, Kant, and Tocqueville, knew how much our civilization depends on Christianity. Today, American and European culture is shaking the pillars of that civilization.
Written from a secular and liberal, but not anti-Christian, point of view, this book explains why the Christian culture is still the best antidote to the crisis and decline of the West. Pera proposes that we should call ourselves Christians if we want to maintain our liberal freedoms, to embark on such projects as the political unification of Europe as well as the special relationship between Europe and America, and to avoid the relativistic trend that affects our public ethics. The challenges of our particular historical moment, as Pope Benedict XVI calls them in the Preface to the book, can be faced only if we stress the historical and conceptual link between Christianity and free society.

Marcello Pera: author's other books


Who wrote Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.

Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make
Table of Contents FOREWORD Marcello Pera is a senator of the Republic of - photo 1
Table of Contents FOREWORD Marcello Pera is a senator of the Republic of - photo 2
Table of Contents

FOREWORD
Marcello Pera is a senator of the Republic of Italy, who served as president of the Italian Senate during a legislative period. He considers himself a liberal (a modern secular thinker) who, however, precisely as such, sees himself within the tradition of Christian thought. His particular area of interest as a philosopher and man of politics is the encounter between the tradition of Christian (Catholic) thought and that of liberal thought. In this book, Pera presents the inner connection between the traditions of Christian and liberal thought, which is critically important for the political and cultural future of Europe. In an impressive way, Pera analyzes the writings of the great liberal thinkers and comes to the surprising conclusion that among the characteristics of liberal thought is its foundation in the Christian image of
God. The emphasis on the idea of mans freedom, characteristic of liberal thought, presupposes the idea of man in the image of God, the consequence of which is precisely the freedom of man. With great scholarly rigor, Pera shows, through an analysis of texts and a presentation of the inner structure of liberalism, that liberalism loses its foundation and thus destroys itself when it abandons this underpinningthe Christian image of God and of man. From here, the title of the book becomes understandable: without its rootedness in the essential elements of the Christian heritage, liberalism loses itself. Liberal democracy in its philosophical foundation presupposes this patrimony and rests upon it.
In this connection, there are also his reflections on the crisis in ethics, in which Pera shows how liberal ethical thought has an inner relationship to the Christian doctrine of the good and how they both can and must be fully linked one to the other on behalf of man.
In light of these essential, fundamental theses of his book, one can understand his analysis of multiculturalism. Pera demonstrates how this concept is in contradiction with itself and how it therefore cannot point the way to the future. Openness to the multifarious cultural patrimony of humanity presupposes ones own cultural identity; only in this way can there be a fruitful encounter among cultures. This is also the case for his analysis of the concepts of interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The reader may be surprised at first that Pera holds that interreligious dialogue, in the strict sense of the word, is not possible, while at the same time he greatly stresses the need for intercultural dialogue. How should we understand this? Pera seeks to argue that, for true believers, the essential faith decisions are not open to discussion. The question, for example, of whether God is or is not triune is not in the final analysis a subject for discussion; on this issue, the yes or no that one gives to the question is a decision taken in faith. Certainly, one can try to explain the inner logic of this apparently contradictory vision and clarify misunderstandings and erroneous interpretations; however, the yes or no as such is not a subject for discussion. But of course one can and must pursue sincere dialogue regarding the ethical and cultural consequences of such fundamental religious decisions in order to attain, in the diversity of these fundamental decisions, the possibility of responsible common action.
With its sober rationality, ample philosophical sophistication, and the force of its argumentation, Peras book is, in my opinion, of great significance at this moment in the history of Europe and the world. I hope that it will find a broad reception in the United States as well as elsewhere and that it will be helpful in giving the political debate on transitory questions that depth without which we cannot hope to overcome the challenges of our particular historical moment.

Pope Benedict XVI
Castel Gandolfo
September 8, 2009
INTRODUCTION
When Our House Catches Fire
Why should we call ourselves Christians? At first glance, there are myriad reasons for not doing so, because religion today is on trial, accused by many witnesses and condemned by many juries. There are historians who consider it a cultural vestige of a remote epoch; philosophers who relegate it among the primitive forms of knowledge and reflection; scientists who dismiss it as a superseded phase in the evolution of the human species; jurists who oppose it as an obstacle to peaceful social coexistence. As for politicians, they either preach syncretism of all religions (dialogue is their word for it) or simply dont believe in anything at all. In every influential arena, todays watchword is we are all post-religious. Those with religious faith may cultivate it in private if they wish. They can manifest their sentiments and feelings and display their symbols at home, but they are not allowed to speak out at school or in the universities or parliaments, in the streets or in the mass media. Gone are the days of the agora, where our Greek forefathers invoked the gods. Today our public spaces must be as aseptic as hospital operating rooms, uncontaminated by the germs of any conception of the good. States must be independent of religious creeds; politics must take a neutral stance on religious values; societies must hold together without any references to religious or ethical ties.
Of all the religions, Christianity is the one most opposed today, for both general and specific reasons. The general reason is that Christianity was the religious core of the West when it thought of itself as a great vehicle and custodian of civilization. If the West today keeps on beating its breast over its presumed guilt from the past and does not believe itself to be better than other civilizations, then Christianity will also lose its special role. The specific reason is the claim that Christianity and its churches, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, continually impeded scientific, technological, political, and social progress. Does it not still reject the main tenets of modernity and, even more, of postmodernity?
These opinions are so widespread nowadays among the intellectual and political elite of the West that they are taken as the undeniable truth. Luckily, many ordinary people have begun to smell the stink of smoke and to challenge the dominant trend of thought. I am one of those people. My view is that the West today is undergoing a profound moral and spiritual crisis, due to a loss of faith in its own worth, exacerbated by the apostasy of Christianity now rife within Western culture.
I consider myself a liberal, but a word of clarification is in order.
When crossing the Atlantic, one experiences the unsettling phenomenon known to philosophers as meaning variance: some words do not have the same connotation or denotation on both sides of the ocean. Liberalism and liberal are words that mean something different, if not completely opposite, between one coast and the other. Its clearly not a question of linguistics, but of history. In Europe, liberals favor the limiting of governmental powers, the autonomy of civil society, and the noninterference of the state in the market. They promote intermediary institutions and prize individual liberty above all. In America, liberals today either oppose all these freedoms or favor restricting and regimenting them for the common good. In Europe, where the state is padre padrone (father and master), liberals see it as an adversary. In America, where the state was traditionally viewed as a necessary evil, liberals now often see it as an ally. Politically speaking, liberals in Europe tend to the right, while in America they tend to the left. The European equivalent for the American term liberal is socialist, while the American equivalent for the European term liberal is conservative.
Next page
Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies»

Look at similar books to Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.


Reviews about «Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies»

Discussion, reviews of the book Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.