Liberalisme keagamaan

Liberalisme keagamaan adalah sebuah konsepsi agama (atau agama tertentu) yang mendorong kebebasan pribadi dan kelompok^[1] dan rasionalitas.^[2] Ini adalah sebuah sikap terhadap agama orang itu sendiri (berbeda dengan kritik agama dari posisi sekuler, dan berbeda dengan kritik agama selain agama orang itu sendiri) yang berseberangan dengan pandangan tradisionalis atau ortodoks, dan secara langsung berlawanan dengan tren fundamentalisme agama. Ini berkaitan dengan kebebasan beragama, yang merupakan toleransi terhadap keyakinan dan praktek agama berbeda, namun tak semua promoter kebebasan beragama sepakat dengan liberalisme agama, dan begitupun sebaliknya.^[3]

Catatan

^ Newman 1991, hlm. 144: "[...] when people talk about 'religious liberalism,' they are normally referring to a commitment to a certain kind of conception of what religion is and, accordingly, of how religious attitudes, institutions, and communities should be developed or reshaped so as to accommodate and promote particular forms of personal and group freedom."
^ Newman 1991, hlm. 159: "[...] religious liberalism came to be so concerned with respect for reason, reasonableness, and rationality [...]"
^ Newman 1991, hlm. 143–144: "However, given the way in which terminology has evolved, we must be careful not to assume too close an association between 'religious liberty' and 'religious liberalism.' Many people who think that religious liberty is basically a good thing that ought to be promoted do not wish to be regarded as advocates of religious liberalism; some of them even feel that many of those who call themselves 'religious liberals' are enemies of religious liberty, or at least end up undermining religious liberty in the process of promoting their own special brand of 'liberal religion.' [...] One notable problem here is that, when liberalism is considered in relation to religion, one may be thinking primarily of a certain 'liberal' conception of religion itself (in contrast with, say, orthodox, conservative, traditionalist, or fundamentalist conceptions) or one may be thinking more of a 'liberal' political view of the value of religious liberty. But, when people talk about 'religious liberalism,' they are usually thinking of the former more than the latter, although they may uncritically assume that the two necessarily accompany one another."

Referensi

Newman, Jay (1991). "Religious liberalism". On religious freedom. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. hlm. 143–180. ISBN 0776603086. OCLC 25051708.

[1] Newman 1991, hlm. 144: "[...] when people talk about 'religious liberalism,' they are normally referring to a commitment to a certain kind of conception of what religion is and, accordingly, of how religious attitudes, institutions, and communities should be developed or reshaped so as to accommodate and promote particular forms of personal and group freedom."

[2] Newman 1991, hlm. 159: "[...] religious liberalism came to be so concerned with respect for reason, reasonableness, and rationality [...]"

[3] Newman 1991, hlm. 143–144: "However, given the way in which terminology has evolved, we must be careful not to assume too close an association between 'religious liberty' and 'religious liberalism.' Many people who think that religious liberty is basically a good thing that ought to be promoted do not wish to be regarded as advocates of religious liberalism; some of them even feel that many of those who call themselves 'religious liberals' are enemies of religious liberty, or at least end up undermining religious liberty in the process of promoting their own special brand of 'liberal religion.' [...] One notable problem here is that, when liberalism is considered in relation to religion, one may be thinking primarily of a certain 'liberal' conception of religion itself (in contrast with, say, orthodox, conservative, traditionalist, or fundamentalist conceptions) or one may be thinking more of a 'liberal' political view of the value of religious liberty. But, when people talk about 'religious liberalism,' they are usually thinking of the former more than the latter, although they may uncritically assume that the two necessarily accompany one another."

[1]

[2]

[3]