2 0RdHUn +XkXk 3UaWL÷LndH 'LnL $UJPanWaV\Rn 7aUWÕşPaOaUÕ Abstract: The study aims to evaluate the views which are in favor that the religious arguments have to be restricted in the legal process and that they have to be allowed. In a liberal system, the state have to have an impartiality toward every consciences. The impartiality stipulates the rationale, science and premises which is shared by whole society in terms of the decision-making process of the state. Because these claims are neither able to convince nor accessible in terms of the people which doesn’t belong to same religious groups. In that situation, the law which would be enacted by the religious arguments doesn’t have a legitimacy for these people. Imposing a law which doesn’t rely on the consent on the people doesn’t comply with the democracy. On the other side, specially divine religions still have an important potential to affect the society in present. Therefore, even if it is not directly, religious rules are continuing to stay in contact with policy and law making process by virtue of their power on the society. Consequently, the members of parliament or executive branches can form their ideas on the certain issues by their religious sensitiveness. Even, they can support obviously their ideas by religious arguments sometimes. the pious politicians or pious citizens have some objections to the restriction of the religious ideas from the policy such as that the religious arguments doesn’t contrary to reason as a whole, that to exclude the religious arguments from the policy causes the discrimination against pious citizens, that the religion have potential for contribution to plurality within the society, that the public reason doesn’t have yet powerful and convincing semantic tools as much as the religion and that the content of the human rights were expanded by the religious human right activists. Keywords: Laicism, Religious Argument, Secular Argument, State İndependecy Toward The Religions. Public Reason Giriş “Bicentennial Man” isimli filmde Andrew isimli bir robot, insani duygular geliştirir ve insanlara özgü bir fiziksel görünümün yanında insana özgü pek çok biyolojik bütünleyici parça ve organları da temin eder. Sonunda ise devlet tarafından bir “insan” olarak tanınmak için yargıya başvurur. Mahkeme başkanı ile Andrew arasında şu diyalog geçer: “Mahkeme Başkanı: Pozitronik beyin nedeniyle tam anlamıyla ölümsüzsünüz. Andrew: Evet efendim. Mahkeme Başkanı: Bu yüzden Andrew, toplum ölümsüz bir robotu hoş görebilir fakat ölümsüz bir insanı asla hoş göremeyiz. Bu durum çok fazla kıs-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1