Georg-August-Universitat Göttinger, Göttinger, Germany.
Bioethics. 2019 May;33(4):457-466. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12526. Epub 2018 Oct 20.
This paper considers Habermas' model of a post-secular political order in the light of the debate on male circumcision that arose in Germany after a court ruled that male circumcision was an unjustifiable act of bodily harm. Central to this model is the idea that religious reasons can only become effective in central legal institutions when they are translated into secular reasons. My paper demonstrates that there are two distinguishable readings of this proviso. On the one hand, there is a broad reading according to which it is only necessary to reach a conclusion that is in line with the democratic principle stating that all citizens can be regarded as co-legislators even if non-generalizable value orientations might then shape the interpretation of fundamental rights (in the case of circumcision, the right to bodily integrity). On the other hand, a truly secular (narrow) reading would avoid the inclusion of non-generalizable value orientations. The debate on circumcision demonstrates that these two interpretations lead to different and conflicting modes of justification. The broad reading allows for a justification of male circumcision, whereas the narrow reading makes such a justification unlikely. In addition, the filtering function of the proviso is weakened in a broad reading.
本文从德国法院裁决男性割礼是一种不合理的身体伤害行为后引发的割礼辩论出发，探讨了哈贝马斯的后世俗政治秩序模式。该模式的核心思想是，只有当宗教理由被转化为世俗理由时，它们才能在核心法律机构中生效。本文表明，这一规定有两种不同的解读。一方面，有一种宽泛的解读，即只要得出一个与民主原则相一致的结论即可，该原则指出，即使不可普遍化的价值取向可能会影响基本权利的解释（在割礼的情况下，即身体完整的权利），所有公民都可以被视为共同立法者。另一方面，真正的世俗（狭义）解读则会避免纳入不可普遍化的价值取向。割礼辩论表明，这两种解读导致了不同的、相互冲突的论证模式。宽泛的解读允许对男性割礼进行论证，而狭义的解读则不太可能支持这种论证。此外，在宽泛的解读中，该规定的过滤功能会被削弱。
