종립사학과 학문의 자유

정재현 한신인문학연구소 2009 종교문화연구 Vol.- No.12

What is science in a general and wider sense, and how should we do it, particularly in relation to religion? This question, though sounding obsolete, must be asked intentionally. For the times have been changed so drastically so that our self-understanding becomes fundamentally different. Especially the relation of religion and science is asked to be reconstituted in a new fashion. Thus, the identity of science and its way of carrying out should be revised and updated to the contemporary spirit, in comparison with its traditional relation to religion. For this purpose, we should pay attention to the relation of the human and religion. Thus far, the human has confined itself to religion at the negligence of 'being human,' though s/he is 'homo religiosus.' As if being human does not need to be examined and reflected upon! However, there was great pitfall in this fainted relation between the human and religion. The human has forgotten his/her own being human in the name of religion. For this reason, there is no reading of religion in the genuine sense. Thus, we need to investigate into the relation of the human and religion. Thereafter, we may go into the sphere of science in order to find out the proper way of studying science. Here we are supposed to look over the evolutionary process of culture by means of genealogical analysis. For if human culture is nothing other than a way of the humans' living in the world, we should take the relation of religion and science into consideration on the basis of cultural history. From this we may draw upon that although both religion and science are for the humans, they cannot but undergo the tension included in the cultural transition from sphere to sphere such as art and myth. And at this point, we may expect to see the dual relation between religion and science. Our discussion thus far eventually arrives at the apex which requires thorough examination of the relation between truth as the aims of both religion and science and freedom either as provided by truth or as required by truth. The relation of truth and freedom, overcoming the ordinary contradiction, constitutes paradoxical unity in such a way that it may serve as the basic framework for both religion and science. And this is the very way in which we may constitute the relation of religion and science for the authenticity of religion-affiliated schools more properly and appropriately.

학문의 자유와 신학하기 : 인간과 종교의 관계를 준거로 하여

정재현 연세대학교 신과대학 2008 신학논단 Vol.51 No.-

What is theology, and how should we do it? This question, though sounding obsolete, must be asked intentionally. For the times have been changed so drastically so that our self-understanding becomes fundamentally different. Especially, the relation of religion and science, or the relation of faith and theology, is asked to be reconstituted in a new fashion. Thus, the identity of theology and its way of carrying out should be revised and updated in conformity with the contemporary spirit. In order to make theology more sensible to the contemporary mind, we should ask the fundamental question as to the relation of the human and religion. For the humans have thus far confined themselves to religion at the negligence of ‘being human,’ though they are ‘homo religiosus,’ as if ‘being human’ would not need to be examined and reflected upon! However, there was great pitfall in this fainted relation between the human and religion. The human has forgotten his/her own being-human in the name of religion. For this reason, there is no reading of religion in the genuine sense. Thus, we need to investigate into the actual relation of the human and religion. Thereafter, we may go into the sphere of science in order to find out the proper way of making theology more relevant to our situation. Here we are supposed to look over the evolutionary process of culture from religion to science by means of genealogical analysis. For if human culture is nothing other than a way of accommodating and adapting the humans themselves for living in the world of nature, we should take the relation of religion and science into consideration on the basis of cultural history. Here let it be noted that although both religion and science are for the humans, they cannot but undergo the tension included in the transitional series of culture such as religion-art-myth-science. And at this point, we may expect to see the dual relation between religion and science because of continuity and discontinuity involved in this genealogical series of culture. In order to clarify the religion-science relation as such, our discussion needs to include the relation of truth and freedom. Thus, we examine the relation between truth as the aims of both religion and science, and freedom either as provided by truth or as required by truth. The relation of truth and freedom, through overcoming the ordinary contradiction, constitutes paradoxical unity m such a way that it may serve as the basic framework for both religion and science. Eventually, we may pursue significant insight into the proper way of doing theology with the help of such paradoxical relation between truth and freedom. In other words, if freedom as presupposed for truth required by science gave obstacle to theology obsessed with belief, we may now place our focus on freedom as presupposition for the authenticity of faith so that we may overcome the compulsory bondage of theology with belief. Through this renovation can we place theology within the sphere of science so appropriately that theology may contribute to the proper sense of religion toward human emancipation more effectively. And this is the very way in which we may do theology more properly and appropriately.

이병주 소설에 나타난 종교의 의미

정미진(Jeong mi jin) 국어문학회 2015 국어문학 Vol.58 No.-

이 글은 이병주의 소설에서 종교에 관한 문제가 빈번하게 언급되고 있으며 종교를 다루는 방식 역시 일관되어 나타난다는 것에서 출발한다. 핵심 서사에서 빗겨나 있는 종교라는 요소가 다양한 작품에서 동일하게 제시된다는 것은 특별한 의미가 있을 것이라 보고 그것이 가지는 의미를 밝히고자 했다. 이병주의 소설에서 몇몇 여성인물의 경우 종교에 맹목적인 태도를 보이지만 그것은 명목에 불과한 것이었으며, 이런 여성인물을 바라보는 지식인 남성 인물의 경우 종교에 냉소적인 태도를 보인다. 또한 『행복어사전』에서는 옥황상제교라는 유사종교 문제를 통해 종교가 가지는 한계를 제시한다. 종교가 신앙으로서의 역할을 넘어 조직의 힘을 가지려 하면 배타적이고 이기적으로 변질될 수밖에 없다는 것이 그 핵심이다. 그러나 이병주는 종교 자체가 가지는 한계를 지적하고 비판하기 위해 종교를 다루는 것이 아니라 한국의 근대사를 가로지르는 이데올로기의 문제를 부각하고 비판하기 위한 알레고리적 장치로 활용하고 있다. 이를 통해 개인의 선택이 억압되고 강제될 수밖에 없던 지난 역사의 허망함을 드러내고 있으며, 개인의 자유를 제압하는 그 어떤 것도 용납할 수 없다는 자신의 신념을 피력한다. 결국 ‘종교’라는 알레고리적 장치를 통해 종교와 이데올로기를 막론하고 이병주 문학의 핵심에 놓이는 것이 ‘인간’이라는 문학적 신념을 재차 강조하고 있는 것이다. This writing starts with the fact that problems about religion are frequently mentioned and the method of dealing with religion is also consistently shown in Lee, Byungju"s novels. In addition, this writing judges that there might be a special meaning in that the religious factor, which is rarely addressed in key description of common novels, is uniformly suggested in diverse works; thus, this writing intended to make its meaning clear. In case of some female characters in Lee, Byungju"s novels, they show an implicit attitude towards religion, but that is just nominal, and in case of an intellectual male character looking at such a female character, the male character shows a cynical attitude. In addition, Lee, Byungju"s novel 『Happiness Word Dictionary』, the writer suggests the limit of religion through the pseudo religion problem of the so-called Okhwangsangje religious group. The key point in religion stated in that novel is that when religion intends to have the strength of an organization beyond the role of religion, the religion cannot but degenerate into exclusivism and egotism. However, the writer Lee, Byungju doesn"t address religion in order to point out and criticize the limit of religion itself, but uses religion as allegorical device for highlighting and criticizing a problem of ideology that cut across through the modern history of Korea. Through this, the writer exposes the futility of the past history where a personal choice couldn"t but be suppressed and forced, and reveals his belief that it"s definitely impossible to accept anything which oppresses freedom. After all, the writer repeatedly puts emphasis on the literary attitude of "a Human", which is the very essence of Lee, byungju literature irrespective of religion and ideology, through the allegorical device of "religion."

세계인권선언과 아브라함계 종교 : 고문받지 않을 권리, 성평등, 종교의 자유를 중심으로

서창록,최정음 종교문화비평학회 2020 종교문화비평 Vol.38 No.38

Why do human rights collide with religion? How can they be reconciled? In order to answer these questions, this article examines the precise spot of such controversies and their contexts. For this purpose, it analyzes how Abrahamic religions have perceived three types of human rights which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Art. 5 on the right not to be tortured, Art. 16 on gender equality in marriage, and Art. 18 on religious freedom. These rights have brought the most critical controversies in the discourse of human rights and religions, especially for Islam’s allowance of lashing, amputation, stoning, early marriage, polygamy, and death penalty for apostasy. However, a careful observation reveals that the conflict between human rights and religions is not limited to a specific religion, such as Islam. For instance, Judaism and Christianity of today are displaying contrary positions in regards to torture: opposing torture and permitting torture. A similar conflict is also witnessed along with women’s rights issues in the same religions. In this context, this article points out the Abrahamic religions’ perceptions of human rights, which have been shaped respectively by the contents of their monotheistic faiths, religious precepts, the collective experiences of the followers with their (non-)ownership of political sovereignty, reform movement, and the interpretation of their religious doctrines. This process demonstrates that the conflict zone between Abrahamic religions and human rights varies depending on epoch and societal changes. Following the examinations of the past and ongoing reconciling efforts by Abrahamic religions with human rights, the article concludes that their reconciliation is not only possible but can effectively be facilitated when human rights endeavor together. By Abrahamic religions, it refers to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which share the notion of monotheism, divine covenant, revelation, chosenness, and prophetic figures. 인권과 종교는 왜 충돌하는가? 이들의 화의는 어떻게 가능한가? 이 논문은 이 같은질문에 답하기 위해 아브라함계 종교와 인권의 반발이 어느 지점에서 생겨나고, 그 원인이 무엇인지 따져본다. 그 방법으로서 세계인권선언 제5조, 16조, 18조와 아브라함계 종교의 교리해석 차이를 고찰한다. 이 세 조항은 각각 고문이나 비인도적인 처우를 받지 않을 권리, 결혼생활에서의 남녀평등, 그리고 사상과 종교의 자유에 대한 권리를 규정하고 있다. 이들은 아브라함계 종교의 인권담론에서 가장 격렬한 논의를 불러온 ‘인권의 종류(type of human rights)’로, 논의의 중심에 이슬람의 태형, 신체절단형, 투석형을 허용하는 형법과 조혼, 중혼, 일부다처를 허용하는 가족법, 그리고 배교자를 사형에 처하는 종교법이있다. 그러나 좀더 깊이 들어가보면, 인권과 종교의 충돌은 이슬람과 같은 특정 종교에만해당하지 않는다. 예를 들어 오늘날 유대교와 기독교는 고문의 허용을 두고 크게 두 가지 입장으로 나뉜다. 고문을 절대적으로 반대하는 입장과 경우에 따라 허용할 수 있다는입장이다. 여성차별 또한 시대에 따른 차이가 있을 뿐 유대교와 기독교에서도 아직까지해결된 문제가 아니다. 이러한 맥락에서 이 논문은 인권의 종류에 대한 아브라함계 종교의 관념이 저마다다른 데 주목한다. 이때 차이를 만드는 요인으로 유일신에 대한 믿음의 내용, 이를 지키기 위해 종교마다 구축된 율법체제, 시대에 따라 종교별 정치권력의 유무와 정도에 따라형성된 교인들의 집단 경험, 그 가운데 일어난 개혁의 바람, 그리고 교리 해석을 꼽는다. 그리하여 아브라함계 종교와 인권이 충돌하는 지점은 모두 다르고, 같은 종교에서 그 내용도 시대와 사회의 변화에 따라 다르지만, 화의가 결코 불가능한 것이 아님을 보인다. 더 나아가 그동안 아브라함계 종교가 어떻게 인권과 화의를 위해 노력해 왔는지를 살펴보고, 인권과 종교가 서로 노력할 때 그 결과가 더욱 효과적임을 증명한다. 이 논문에서아브라함계 종교는 유일신 사상, 계시, 언약, 선택, 선지자 등의 개념을 공유하는 유대교, 기독교, 이슬람교를 말한다.

중국의 "종교"와 "유교" 논쟁- 캉유웨이康有爲(강유위)와 량치차오梁啓超(양계초)를 중심으로

임부연 ( Boo Yeon Lim ) 퇴계학연구원 2015 退溪學報 Vol.137 No.-

본 논문에서는 서구 근대의 언어 religion의 번역어인 ‘宗敎(쫑자오zongjiao)’가 중국사회에 도입되는데 커다란 역할을 수행한 캉유웨이(康有爲)와 량치차오(梁啓超)의 대립되는 입장을 비교함으로써 근대전환기에 유교가 종교 개념과 관련해 새로운 정체성을 획득하게 되는 談論의 전체적인 구도를 검토하였다. 첫째, 캉유웨이는 宗敎 개념을 유교적인 방식으로 해석하면서 유교의 종교적 정체성religious identity을 새롭게 주장하였다. 특히 그는 ‘人道’와 ‘神道’라는 유교적인 분류를 통해 儒敎를 近代文明에 가장 적합한 종교로 정의하였다. 이에 비해 近代 啓蒙主義 관점에서 종교를 문명의 장애물로 여긴 량치차오는 비합리적인 迷信과 종교를 연계시켰다. 이런 의미에서 합리적인 유교는 종교의 영역에서 제외되었다. 하지만, 종교의 道德은 공적인 영역으로 긍정되고, 佛敎는 正信이나 智信으로, 心學은 최고 수준의 종교로 인정되었다. 둘째, 캉유웨이는 今文經學에 기초하여 孔子를 중국문명의 敎主로 신격화시키고 유교전통을 근대적인 종교인 ‘孔敎(KOngjiao)’로 개혁하였다. 더 나아가 民族主義nationalism 신념에 따라 중국 인민을 통합시키는 國敎이자 國魂으로서 공교의 초월적 위상을 주장하였다. 이런 의미에서 그는 근본이 되는 文化的 守舊가 말단이 되는 政治的 維新보다 더 중요하다고 생각하였다. 하지만 량치차오는 공자가 神이 아니라 사람이라는 점을 근거로 孔子의 神格化를 거부하고, 유교는 오직 인간의 현실적인 존재방식을 다룬다는 입장에서 儒敎의 宗敎化를 비판하였다. 더 나아가 공자보다는 思想의 自由가 文明進步의 총체적인 원인으로서 가장 중요시되었다. 셋째, 캉유웨이는 政敎分離의 원칙에서 유래하는 宗敎多元狀況을 孔敎의 종교적 정체성에 대한 자각과 孔敎國敎化의 필요성에 대한 근거로 생각했다. 더 나아가 信敎自由와 國敎獨尊의 竝存은 유교 이외 에 다른 종교도 함께 믿을 수 있다는“兼信”의 유교적 관용주의로 정 당화되었다. 이에 비해 량치차오는 정교분리 원칙을 엄격하게 해석하여 정치와 종교의 상호 간섭을 철저하게 부정하였다. 특히 그는 信敎 自由와 國敎의 모순에 주목하여 國敎의 건립이 결국 敎爭과 政爭으로 이어져 國民이 分裂하게 될 것이라고 전망하였다. 결론적으로, 종교를 文明進步의 원동력이자 민족적 정체성의 원천으로 여긴 캉유웨이가 유교의 종교적 구성에 기초하여 특정한 국가 형태를 초월하는 孔敎 위에 건설된 近代的 國民國家를 상상한데 비해, 종교가 문명의 장애물로서 국가운영의 근대적인 원칙으로 적합하지 않다고 생각한 량치차오는 啓蒙主義 관점에 따라 사적인 종교의 사회적 역할을 배제하고 현세적인 유교와 비현세적인 종교를 분리시켰다. “宗敎(zongjiao)”, the translated language of “religion” in Western society, was a key concept connected with the reform of “Confucianism” during the modern transitional period in Chinese society. This paper seeks to illuminate the conflicting positions of Kang Youwei(康有爲, 1858~1927) and Liang Qichao(梁啓超, 1873~1929) on the problems of the concept of religion and the new identity of Confucianism. First, Kang Youwei insisted the religious identity of Confucianism by the Confucian interpretation of the concept of religion. Especially, on the basis of the Confucian classification of Human Way(人道) and Spiritual Way(神道), he could define Confucianism as the most suitable religion for modern civilization. In contrast, Liang Qichao, regarding religion as the obstacle to civilization from the perspective of modern Enlightenment, connected religion with irrational superstition(迷信). In this sense, rational Confucianism was excluded from the sphere of religion. But, he affirmed the morality of religion as the public sphere, and regarded Buddhism as a right or wise faith(正信/智信), Heart Learning(心學) as a top-class religion. Second, Kang Youwei, deifying the Confucius as the founder of Chinese civilization by New Text Confucianism(今文經學), reformed the Confucian tradition as a modern religion, namely Confucian religion(孔敎, Kongjiao). Moreover, on the basis of nationalism, he insisted the transcendent status of Kongjiao as the state religion(國敎) and national spirit(國魂) that could corporate all Chinese people. In this sense, he thought that the cultural conservatism(守舊) as the root was more important than the political reformation(維新) as the branch. Meanwhile, Liang Qichao rejected the deification of Confucius on the grounds that Confucius had not been a god but a man, and criticized the religionization of Confucianism on the position that Confucianism only had dealt with man’s realistic modes of being. Moreover, the freedom of thought as the overall cause of civilization was put first. Third, Kang Youwei thought that the situation of religious pluralism resulting from the modern separation of state and religion(政敎分離) was the reasons for the self-awareness of Confucian religious identity and the necessity of Confucian religion’s establishment. Moreover, the coexistence of state religion and freedom of religion(信敎自由) was justified by the Confucian toleration allowing different religious faiths besides Confucianism. But Liang Qichao, on the strict interpretation of the separa tion principle, opposed the mutual interference of politics and religion. Especially, he anticipated the religious and political strife, and the division of the Chinese people stemming from the forceful establishment. In sum, Kang Youwei, regarding religion as the driving force of civilization’s progress and the source of national identity, imagined a modern nation-state built on Confucian religion transcending any particular national form by the religious construction of Confucianism. In contrast, Liang Qichao, thinking that religion as the obstacle to civilization was not suitable for the modern principle of national operation, eliminated the social role of private religion, and divided the this-worldly Confucianism and the other-worldly religion from the Enlightenment point of view.

청소년(靑少年)과 민족정신(民族精神) : 불교계(佛敎界) 일본(日本) 신종교(新宗敎) 한국(韓國) 포교(布敎) 현황(現況) -입정교(立正교) 성회(成會)를 중심(中心)으로-

장정태 ( Jeong Tae Jang ) 한국청소년효문화학회 2010 청소년과 효문화 Vol.15 No.-

After World War II, an ideological division took place between the communist group and the democratic group politically. The defeated Japan not only ruined with their militarism, but also opened the way of emancipation of Chosun. Japan`s New Religion propaganda accompanied with invasion also went to ruin. According to the regulation of confiscation of enemies` property, some had reverted to quasi-religious institutions in Korea. But, majority of religious facilities had reverted to other religions without their intention. The New Religion is a religion that originated between the mid nineteenth century and the mid twentieth century. However, chronologically the mid nineteenth century is far past to be called a New Religion. Eventually, it is now called Neo-New Religion emphasizing its modern character. There are diverse ways for human to choose a religion: religion of family, religion accepted by economical or other reasons, and religion introduced by the help of friends, partner, children etc. But, every human being is ultimately responsible for his/her own decision and its result. Religion is a determination for human, and is to open self to love other human being. Religions start from the love of human being and go to embody true love. Majority religions in Korea are those in which the traditional contents are contained on top of foreign religious foundations. Although there are some religions that became one of the world religions overcoming the regional limitation, many religions had disappeared without escaping nationalistic characters. This phenomenon is coincided with the destiny of other Korean religions. The Korean propaganda of Rissho Kosei-kai(立正교 成會) is still mere in power despite its religious depth. It is partly because of the political output as shown before. However, it is also because they reject the assimilation and compromise with the Korean Buddhism.

孤雲崔致遠的三教會通論和其現代化意義

최영성 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소 2013 儒敎文化硏究(中文版) Vol.0 No.19

Goun Choi chi-won is a representative scholar in late Silla and an intellectual representing the spirit of the times. His GyeWonPilGyeongJib is the oldest collection in Korea. He studied in Tang at the age of twelve and fostered international sense to be a sinologist. He is one of the East eighteen sages in Confucius's shrine, the mainstream of Korean Taoism and respected as a Buddhist in Buddhism. As a pioneer of the history of Korean thought and intermixture of three religions, he argued that Taoism and Buddhism were intermixed based on Confucianism and three religions finally met in a point. His philosophy has a theory of harmony but not that of conflicts. He interpreted Pungryudo (風流道), an indigenous Korean thought based on three religions, international value of the time. He suggested that Pungryu originally included elements of three religions with presenting traditions of benevolence in a land of gentlemen (君子國) and of Yubak (柔樸) in the Kingdom of Cheonggu (靑丘國) as his grounds. He insisted nativization of three religions saying that three religions were simply not foreign ideas but closely related to the Korean traditional thought. His ideas on the tradition are directly connected to finding national identity. His ideal model for a religion was Pungryu. He tried to truly realize thought of Pungryu for his life. His intermixture of three religions was further developed into a unique context by younger students and posterity who admired him and his thought. Scholars, writers and religionists belonging to his school became masters in their own fields. Writers created sophisticated and great works of literature utilizing thought and theories of three religions and scholars and thinkers drew communication and conversation between each religion and thought to make them understand each other. Posterity of Taoism admired him as their ancestor, a pioneer for preserving the essence of Korean culture from the world of thought obsessed with Sinocentrism. Choi Je-woo founded Donghak which realized tradition of Pungryudo. In addition, Choi Chi-won's thought of seeking national identity and cultural universality was respected as an ideological lead by Silhak scholars of Bukhak School (北學派). Choi Chi-won suggested that the truth was not far from humans and there was no discrimination among people according to their nationality. He stressed seeking the truth not from transcendental elements but through humans' inner nature by experience. It is believed that his intermixture of three religions based on the theory of harmony could contribute to solving religious and ideological conflicts in today's multi-religion and multicultural society and lead to the world of communication and reconciliation. 孤雲崔致遠是韓國新羅末期的代表性學者,代表了當時的時代精神。他的遺著《桂苑筆耕集》是韓國最古老的文集,代表了東方藝苑。崔致遠12歲入唐遊學,在唐修學的16年間培養了敏銳的國際洞察力,是代表性的中國通。他既是現代韓國孔子宗廟從祀配享的東方十八賢之一,又是韓國仙家的中心人物,而佛家也尊其爲“儒而佛者”。他不僅譜寫了韓國思想史的序章,而且是三教會通論的先驅。他以儒教爲基礎,與老·佛融會貫通,使他們最終“殊途同歸”,“所歸一揆”。在崔致遠的哲學中有“和”的理論,但是沒有“爭”的理論。他用三教思想的這種國際性價值標准解釋了韓國固有的風流道思想,認爲風流思想中本來就包含了三教思想的要素,並以重視仁的君子國之傳統,及重視柔樸的青丘國的傳統爲根據舉了例子。由此得出三教思想並不是單純的外來思想,它與韓國的傳統思想有著密切的相關性,因此他主張將三教思想本土化。崔致遠的這種思想傳統是與民主獨立性的發現息息相關的,他所構想的最理想的宗教模式即爲風流,而他也盡其一生實踐了風流道思想。另一方面,崔致遠的三教會通論也爲傾慕他思想傳統的後繼學者奠定了理論基礎,在以後形成了獨特的學派脈絡。崔致遠學派的學者·文人·宗教家們都在各自的領域裏開拓出極高的成就。文人們在三教思想和理論的基礎上創造出極高水准的文學作品,學者和思想家們則以此加強了各個宗教和思想間的溝通和對話,通過認識人類內面本質的同一性使大家更加緊密的相連。仙家的後裔們將崔致遠奉做仙家的中祖,認爲其尊華事大的思想境界可以稱作是保護韓國精神文化精髓的先驅。崔致遠的後孫崔濟愚爲再現風流道傳統,創建了東學派這一宗教。金恒撰寫了韓國的周易,即被稱作第三周易的《正易》,繼承了崔致遠的思想和傳統。不僅如此,崔致遠思想中追求民族獨立性和文化普遍性的思想還被朝鮮後期北學派的實學者所接受,將其尊爲北學思想的先驅。崔致遠說“道不遠人,人無異國”,強調真理並不是在超越的彼岸尋求,而是通過人類深層的內面本質去體會。以“和”爲基礎,崔致遠圓融會通的思想,相信可以爲當今這個多宗教的社會消除宗教間·思想間的對立和矛盾,加強相互間的溝通和和解。

아브라함계 종교와 세계인권선언: 인권관념 비교연구

서창록 ( Soh Changrok ),최정음 ( Choi Jeongeum ) 서울대학교 종교문제연구소 2021 종교와 문화 Vol.- No.40

This article compares and analyzes the idea of human rights in Abrahamic religions. For this purpose, it reviews Abramamic religions’ contribution to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), their theological interpretations of rights-claiming culture, and human dignity. The article identifies two components that have shaped their varied notion of human rights. The first is that the religions have regarded the universalist claim of human rights as a moral challenge against their religious doctrines, which was established to preserve their Divine revelations. The second is that their historical experiences - religious persecution for Judaism, the Enlightenment for Christianity, and the West European Colonialism for Islam - have respectively shaped their initial hostility towards the idea of human rights. The concept of human rights is commonly considered to be founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Western experience of the Enlightenment. Judaism and Christianity, however, alongside Islam, have in actuality often repudiated the idea of universal human rights following the adoption of the UDHR. This paper demonstrates that this conceptual distance between religion and human rights has ultimately been narrowed due to an increase in shared dialogue. In short, the idea of human rights has earned its universality in Abrahamic religions through a set of debates and compromises.

인도네시아의 헌법과 법률에 나타난 종교문화 고찰

이세경 종교문화비평학회 2018 종교문화비평 Vol.34 No.34

Many Muslims have settled down in Korea by way of the employments and the marriages. Although the Koreans have the tolerance for the various religious traditions, they still feel unfamiliar with Islam. But in this era of globalization, Korean society is requested to embrace new perspectives related to Islam. At this point, it is meaningful to review the influences of the Islamic tradition and the significance of religion in the Indonesian Constitution. The Republic of Indonesia is a democratic society with a culture of mutual coexistence based on a variety of languages, peoples, and religions. In spite of the fact that Indonesia consists of the majority of Muslims, freedom of religion is widely accepted when compared to other Islamic countries. And this freedom of religion in Indonesia is protected through the Indonesian Constitution and laws. Therefore, it is necessary to examine them in detail for understanding the relationship between Indonesian Constitution and the religions in the reality of its institutions. In this paper, I examined legally the culture of religion in Indonesia from the standpoint of the Indonesian Constitution and laws and conclude that ‘The Constitution of Indonesia’ presents religion in terms of national ideology, social institutions, and human rights. So, the freedom of religion for the individual human being in one hand and the restriction of religion as for the social institution in the other are conflicted each other in Indonesian legal system, including Constitution and Acts. We will need to see this conflict in order to understand Indonesian culture of religion, properly and deeply. This study is expected to help us understand Islam as the religion and the culture as a reality, which is approaching nearer to the Korean society. 문화적 다양성의 물결 속에서 한국사회는 새로운 관점과 세계관을 수용해야 하는시대를 살고 있다. 역사적으로 중국, 일본, 미국, 유럽의 종교와 문화 전통은 이제 수용의 단계를 넘어 일부 내용을 제외하고는 이질감을 느끼지 못할 정도가 되었지만, 최근다양한 방면에서 접촉이 이루어지고 있는 이슬람권 문화는 상호이해의 필요성에도 불구하고 아직 거리감이 존재한다고 보인다. 이러한 관점에서 이슬람 전통이 확고히 자리 잡고 있으면서, 종교의 자유가 보장되어 있는 인도네시아의 헌법에 담긴 종교의 의미를 살펴보는 것은 한국 사회에서도 큰 의미가 있다고 본다. 현대사회에서 종교가 단순히 사회공동체의 관습적 전통으로 개개인간에 수용, 종결되어 내적 가치에 머물고 마는 것이 아니라 결국 국가를 규범 하는 법에의해 하나의 권리로서 확정되는 양상을 띤다는 점에서, 종교를 국가의 법률체계라는 강제규범 내에서 이해할 필요가 있고, 법률체계 내에서 종교가 갖는 의미를 충분히 살필수 있을 때 타 종교와 관련된 오해와 불필요한 노력을 방지할 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문은 인도네시아 헌법에 담긴 종교의 의미가 국가, 사회, 개인으로 나누어 각각의 층위에서 통치이념, 사회구성체, 인권으로 이해될 수 있음을 살피고, 이를토대로 다양한 층위에서 우리와 접촉의 범위를 넓혀가고 있는 인도네시아의 종교문화전통을 이해하는데 도움이 되고자 하였고, 더 나아가 법적인 관점에서 전반적인 이슬람과무슬림 문화를 이해하는 접근의 틀을 제시하고자 하였다. 또한 본 논문은 인도네시아의헌법과 종교의 관계를 논한 기존 논문들이 기술적 관점에 머물러, 인도네시아 헌법에 담긴 종교문화의 다층위적 의미를 수용해내지 못한 한계를 극복할 수 있는 계기를 마련하고자 노력하였다. 한국사회에 내재하고 있는 종교적 다양성과 관용이 무슬림들의 한국사회 진입에 대해서는 어떻게 반응해낼지, 또한 한국이 세계화를 통하여 다양한 이슬람권으로 진출하고 있는 시점에서 종교로서의 이슬람이 포함하고 있는 정치, 경제, 사회, 문화에 어떻게 접근해 나갈지를 위한 기초 연구로서 인도네시아의 헌법과 법률에 나타난 종교문화고찰은 분명히 의미가 있을 것으로 판단된다.

베르그손에게서 주체와 종교

주재형 ( Joo¸ Jae-hyung ) 한국가톨릭철학회 2017 가톨릭철학 Vol.0 No.28

베르그손의 _도덕과 종교의 두 원천_은 우리에게 주체화에 관한 매우 독특한 이론을 제시한다. 이에 따르면, 인간이 자신의 실존을 장악하는 주체가 되는 것은 종교를 통해서이다. 지성적 동물인 인간은 인간의 존재가 무의미한 세계 표상을 통해 인간을 허무주의의 고뇌에 빠뜨린다. 주체화는 이러한 지성의 자기 해체적 위험에 대한 방어적 반작용에서 시작된다. 그런데 베르그손은 두 종류의 주체화, 즉 정태적 종교의 작화 본능에 따른 사회적 주체화와 역동적 종교의 신비주의적 직관에 따른 우주론적 주체화를 제시한다. 이 두 주체화 방식에 대한 검토로부터 우리는 주체와 종교의 관계에 관한 다음의 결론들에 이르게 된다. 1) 종교는 주체화의 필수적인 요소이다. 2) 하지만 두 가지 주체화 양태에 따라서 두 가지 종류의 종교가 있다. In Bergson’s two sources of morality and religion one can find a singular theory of subjectivation, linked to an equally singular theory of religion. Bergson starts from a nihilistic existentialism of mankind being the essentially intellectual animal. Human intelligence gives us the depressing representation of the world, which would destroy our will to live by making us realize the meaningless of our existence in this world. Subjectivation is the defense of the destructive effect of this representation of the world. But there are two kinds of subjectivation, social subjectivation through the virtual instinct of static religion, and cosmological subjectivation by the mystical intuition of dynamic religion. From the examination of these two modes of subjectivation, we have two conclusions about the relation between the subject and religion: 1) Religion is a necessary element of human subjectivation. 2) But because there are two modes of subjectivation, we do not have a religion, but two kinds of religion according to these two modes of subjectivation.