درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

It is widely accepted that the freedom to practice one's religion, and to live according to one's religious beliefs, is a basic human right, and the key to peaceful coexistence among religious communities and among nations. In my paper I will focus on the problems that arise when sincerely held religious beliefs come into conflict with the rights of others. Recently in the United States, two such situations have received widespread attention. One case involves pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, because they believe that the use of certain kinds of contraception violates their Christian religious beliefs. The other case involves Muslim taxicab drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol for similar reasons. In response to such conflicts, religious tolerance is often embraced as a solution. In western society, the ideal of religious tolerance can be traced back at least to John Locke, and received considerable attention in the work of political philosopher John Rawls. In recent years, tolerance has been embraced as a public value through programs that teach tolerance in public schools. But the ideal of tolerance has also come under criticism from theorists such as Wendy Brown, professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley, and author of <em>Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire</em> (Princeton University Press).  Brown argues that tolerance is “an impoverished and impoverishing framework through which domestic, civil and international conflicts and events (are) formulated... The experience of being tolerated is inevitably one of being condescended to, of being forborne. The object of tolerance is constructed as marginal, inferior, other, outside the community, in some relation of enmity with the community.” Moreover, as the legal scholar Stanley Fish has noted, the doctrine of tolerance “legitimizes, and even demands, the exercise of <em>in</em>tolerance, when the objects of intolerance are persons who, because of their over-attachment to culture, are deemed incapable of being tolerant.”  What implications do these critiques of tolerance have for how we should address real-life cases of conflict between religious beliefs and the rights of others? “Obviously” as Wendy Brown points out, “it is always better to be tolerated than not, if those are the choices.” But I believe that there are possibilities that go beyond tolerance, that are based on dialogue. The importance of dialogue has been stressed by thinkers including Mohammed Khatami, and philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton University, author of <em>Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers </em>(W.W. Norton).  I will argue that productive dialogue between different cultures, or even between different segments of a culturally diverse society, requires more than just reasoned argument. Rather, it requires a deeper conversation that develops an understanding of each other’s history and everyday life and strives for a level of mutual trust and respect. In my conclusion, I will discuss the ways in which this kind of dialogue between faiths can contribute to the cause of peace.

Today, there is a need for a new approach toward the sea and sea-based sustainable development. Alfred Mahan, by presenting the theory of Sea Power, made the politicians pay special attention to the sea and navigation. To present the theory of Maritime Civilization, a theory building framework was used. The framework includes three steps, from the Descriptive stage (Observation, Categorization, and Association), to the Normative stage, based on the theoretical basis of the research. The present study, while confirming the positive points of the Alfred Mahan''s Sea Power theory, criticized the nature of thoughts behind the theory. By extracting the necessary terms from literature and research background confirming the positive and negative points of the Sea Power theory and by considering the framework of theory building in Management Science research, a theory called "Maritime Civilization" was presented instead of the Sea Power theory. The results of the study indicated that Sea Power theory has good positive points, however, Alfred Mahan''s approach to the sea is an authoritarian and domineering perspective that, firstly, contradicts values and ethics; secondly, the present discussions about sustainable development and the Green Environment criticize the Sea Power theory. Thus, the theory of Maritime Civilization is presented, according to which the maritime civilization is a civilization in which the intellectual, scientific, industrial, social, economic and political movements are created in conjunction with the sea and the marine environment. Using a set of capacities and resources, this civilization seeks to enjoy a sustainable sea exploitation in order to turn the human and the marine community into a peaceful community. This is a preliminary theory, and for assessing its validity, the views of five experts from the Marine Science universities were used, which necessitates further investigation by other researchers in the future