JU ̈RGEN HABERMASclaims, not, to be sure, for functional reasons, but—bearing in mind its successful ‘‘Hege-
lian’’ learning processes—for reasons of content.
The mutual penetration of Christianity and Greek metaphysics did not, of course,
bring about only the spiritual form [geistig Gestalt] of theological dogmatics and a Helle-
nization—not in every aspect beneficial—of Christianity. It also promoted philosophy’s
appropriation of genuinely Christian content. This work of appropriation found its ex-
pression in heavily laden, normative conceptual networks such as: responsibility; auton-
omy and justification; history and memory; beginning anew, innovation, and return;
emancipation and fulfillment; externalization, internalization, and embodiment; individ-
uality and community. It is true that the work of appropriation transformed the originally
religious meaning, but without deflating or weakening it in a way that would empty it
out. The translation of the notion of man’s likeness to God into the notion of human
dignity, in which all men partake equally and which is to be respected unconditionally, is
such a saving translation. The translation renders the content of biblical concepts accessi-
ble to the general public of people of other faiths, as well as to nonbelievers, beyond
the boundaries of a particular religious community. Benjamin, for instance, sometimes
succeeded in such translations.
Based on this experience of the secularizing release of religiously encapsulated poten-
tials of meaning, we can now give a defused interpretation of Bo ̈ckenfo ̈rde’s theorem. I
have mentioned the diagnosis that the balance that has emerged in modernity between
the three major media of societal integration is now threatened because markets and
administrative power drive societal solidarity—that is, a coordination of action in accor-
dance with values, norms, and a usage of language oriented toward communication—out
of ever more areas of life. It is therefore also in the constitutional state’s own interest to
treat with care all cultural sources upon which the consciousness of norms and the soli-
darity of citizens draw. This consciousness, which has become conservative, is reflected in
the talk of a ‘‘post-secular society.’’^8
This term refers not only to the fact that religion continues to assert itself in an
increasingly secular environment and that society, for the time being, reckons with the
continued existence of religious communities. The expressionpost-seculardoes not merely
acknowledge publicly the functional contribution that religious communities make to the
reproduction of desired motives and attitudes. Rather, the public consciousness of post-
secular society reflects a normative insight that has consequences for how believing and
unbelieving citizens interact with one another politically. In post-secular society, the real-
ization that ‘‘the modernization of public consciousness’’ takes hold of and reflexively
alters religious as well as secular mentalities in staggered phases is gaining acceptance. If
together they understand the secularization of society to be a complementary learning
process, both sides can, for cognitive reasons, then take seriously each other’s contribu-
tions to controversial themes in the public sphere.
PAGE 258258.................16224$ CH11 10-13-06 12:35:20 PS