Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2018 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Batista Neto, Dilson Cavalcanti
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Santos, Maria Celeste Cordeiro Leite dos |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/21028
|
Resumo: |
The present thesis has as problematic point the challenge of proposing limits to the religious discourse in the political environment before a plural society and the democratic ideal of neutrality in relation to religious organizations. Thus, the central hypothesis is that the boundaries between law, politics and religion are better delineated when one takes into account that the protection of freedom of expression must attend to the basic moral foundations built historically, especially through central ideas of John's work Rawls, especially after the release of Political Liberalism. In this sense, the primary objective of the thesis is a proposal of ethical and political foundations that involve a protection of the freedom of religious expression in the sphere of the political discussion inserted in a democratic State. Through the deductive method, two more basic foundations are proposed in order to deal with specific cases of religious discourses given by public agents, as well as with the possible interference of law in the expression of religious and their organizations. It is proposed that freedom of religious expression in the political environment should be based on two basic foundations: the first was called the basis of the isegoria which, through the Rawlsian idea of overlapping consensus, points to the possibility of a democracy with equal status among citizens , whether religious or not. The second ground is that of the parresia that has in the proposal of public reason of Rawls, mainly in its last formulation, a suitable framework so that the religious does not have to live in divided form: hour through an internal posture of its doctrine, hour in the field politician dissociating himself from his religious language. This theoretical course is finalized with proposals of limits to religious discourse by public agents and also with the need to reinforce that law and politics should not limit, without seriously justifiable reasons, the expression of religious groups |
