No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 March 2013
The argument that I wish to make here was first presented at a German conference whose working title was “Glauben nach the Moderne: Deutsch-amerikanische Intellktuellendiskurse.” That title posed both an interrelated ambiguity and a challenge. The ambiguity stemmed from the contrasting meanings of the preposition nach. Did nach mean “according to,” so that the major topic concerned “faith in relation to modernity” or “faith within the conditions of modernity”? Or did nach mean “afterwards,” so that the issue was faith after modernity in the sense of “post-” modernity? If the former, then the conditions of modernity pose the challenge to faith. If the latter (as postmodern theorists argue), then today's situation constitutes a critique of modernity which establishes the contemporary conditions of faith. This contrast formulates for me the challenge of articulating the possibilities of a theological dialogue and exchange between European culture and Anglo-American culture on the subject of cosmopolitanism and theology.
1 Lindbeck, George, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 16–17.Google Scholar
3 See Coleman, John, An American Strategic Theology (New York: Paulist, 1982), 193–98.Google Scholar
5 Thiemann, Ronald F., Revelation and Theology: The Gospels as Narrated Promise (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985).Google Scholar
6 Tanner, Kathryn, Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).Google Scholar
8 Marshall, Bruce, Christology in Conflict: The Identity of a Saviour in Rahner and Barth (New York: Blackwell, 1987).Google Scholar
9 Lindbeck, George, “The Gospel's Uniqueness: Election and Untranslatability,” Modern Theology 134 (1997): 423–50Google Scholar, quote from 427. For a contrasting viewpoint to Lindbeck, see Ratzinger's, Joseph defense of human rights as a basis for democracy and pluralism, in his Wahrheit, Werte, Macht. Prufsteine der pluralistischen Gesellschaft (Freiburg: Herder, 1993).Google Scholar
10 Walzer, Michael, Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 9.Google Scholar
13 Stout, Jeffrey, The Flight from Authority. Religion, Morality, and the Quest for Autonomy. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981)Google Scholar; idem, Ethics after Babel: The Languages of Morals and their Discontents (Boston: Beacon. 1988); idem, Democracy and Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
18 Milbank, John, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990).Google Scholar
20 Balthasar, Hans Urs von's Theology of Karl Barth (Doubleday: Garden City, 1972), 221–26.Google Scholar
22 See Rahner, Karl, “Theological Conception of Concupiscentia,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 1, God, Christ, Mary and Grace, trans. Ernst, Cornelius (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), 347–82.Google Scholar
24 Milbank, John, The Suspended Middle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 76–79Google Scholar criticizes von Balthasar for his “Rahnerian tendencies.”
25 See Nussbaum, Martha, “Kant and Cosmopolitanism,” in Bohman, James and Lutz-Bachmann, Mathias, eds., Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Pagden, Anthony, “Stoicism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Legacy of European Imperialism,” Constellations 7 (2000): 3–22.Google Scholar
28 Douzinas, Costas, The End of Human Rights: Critical Legal Thought at the Turn of the Century (Portland, OR: Hart, 2000)Google Scholar and his Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (New York: Routledge, 2007).
31 Schmitt, Carl, Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1924–1954 (Berlin: Duncker and Humbolt, 1958).Google Scholar
33 David Little has argued that Hitler's use of emergency can be seen as the background to the emergency legislation in the United Nations Charter and its documents. See his “Liberalism and World Order: The Thought of James Luther Adams,” Harvard Divinity School Bulletin 31/3 (Summer 2003): 7–9.
34 The official title is: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (Oct. 25, 2001),” HR 3162 RDS.
35 Drury, Shadia B., Leo Strauss and the American Right (New York: St. Martin's, 1997).Google ScholarManemann, Jürgen, Carl Schmitt und die Politische Theologie (Münster: Aschendorff, 2002)Google Scholar gives a fine and comprehensive account of the recent English reception of Schmitt (see esp. 201–14). See also McCormick, John P., Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
36 Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. Schwab, George (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985).Google Scholar
37 See Preuss, Ulrich, “Constitutional Powermaking for the New Polity: Some Deliberations on the Relations Between Constituent Power and the Constitution,” Cardozo Law Review 14 (1993): 650.Google Scholar The Attorney General of the United States John Ashcroft, responded as follows during a Senate hearing in December 2001: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: ‘Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies.’” Similarly, one hears President Bush divide the world into friends and enemies: those who are with us and those who are against us. The sounds are those of President Bush's voice, but the “hands” are Carl Schmitt's understanding of political sovereignty in the face of emergency, his contrast between friend and enemy, and his advocacy of an homogeneous culture and people.
38 See Atlas, James, “The Nation: Leo-Cons: A Classicist's Legacy: New Empire Builders,” The New York Times, Week in Review, May 4, 2003, 1Google Scholar; see also the article by Frachon, Alain and Vernet, Daniel, “The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter,” Le Monde, April 16, 2003Google Scholar, translated in CounterPunch, June 2, 2003 (http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html; accessed October 6, 2008).
39 See my forthcoming Rights at Risk (New York: Continuum, 2009).
40 Lonergan, Bernard J. F., Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (New York: Philosophical Library 1958).Google Scholar
42 See Rahner, Karl, Politische Dimensionen des Christentums: Ausgewählte Texte zu Fragen der Zeit, ed. Vorgrimler, Herbert (Munich: Kösel, 1986).Google Scholar
43 Rahner, Karl, “Aspects of European Theology,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 21, Science and Christian Faith, ed. Imhof, Paul, trans. Riley, Hugh M. (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 78–98Google Scholar and “The Problem of Europe's Future,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 22, Humane Society and the Church of Tomorrow, ed. Imhof, Paul, trans. Donceel, Joseph (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 44–63.Google Scholar
46 Lonergan, Bernard J. F., “Natural Right and Historical Mindedness,” in A Third Collection: Papers, ed. Crowe, Frederick E. (New York: Paulist, 1985), 169–83.Google Scholar
52 See Murray, John Courtney, The Problem of God: Yesterday and Today (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964), 101–21.Google Scholar
53 Murray, John Courtney, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960), 293.Google Scholar
56 Murray, John Courtney, “The Juridical Organization of the International Community,” in Bridging the Sacred and the Secular: Selected Writings of John Courtney Murray, ed. Hooper, J. Leon (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
No CrossRef data available.