Offense morale contre liberté religieuse. La controverse de Ground Zero
Résumé
Moral offense versus religious freedomThe ground zero controversy
Many controversies that have taken place since the early 2000s around the place of religious symbols in the public sphere have revealed a new type of demand, based on a call for a better acknowledgement of moral and religious injury. Through the examination of the practical effect of the moral offense argument in the recent Ground Zero Controversy, this article investigates the nature of this opposition between rights and emotions. Rather than an expression of an antipolitical or ethical turn in the American public debate, this recasting of the boundary between rights and emotions is a particular form of discursive strategy. It enables the opponents to the Cordoba project to keep the controversy alive, even after most legal and technical reasons against the mosque have been dispensed with.
Many controversies that have taken place since the early 2000s around the place of religious symbols in the public sphere have revealed a new type of demand, based on a call for a better acknowledgement of moral and religious injury. Through the examination of the practical effect of the moral offense argument in the recent Ground Zero Controversy, this article investigates the nature of this opposition between rights and emotions. Rather than an expression of an antipolitical or ethical turn in the American public debate, this recasting of the boundary between rights and emotions is a particular form of discursive strategy. It enables the opponents to the Cordoba project to keep the controversy alive, even after most legal and technical reasons against the mosque have been dispensed with.
Plusieurs des controverses qui ont eu lieu depuis le début des années 2000 autour de la place des symboles religieux dans l’espace public ont fait apparaître une revendication particulière, celle du droit à la reconnaissance de l’offense religieuse et morale. En examinant ce qu’accomplit effectivement l’argumentaire de l’offense morale dans la controverse américaine qui éclata au printemps 2010 autour du projet de construction d’un centre culturel islamique à Manhattan, cet article analyse la nature de cette opposition entre droit et émotion. La requalification des frontières entre le droit et l’émotion n’exprime pas un tournant éthique ou antipolitique du débat public américain sur la liberté religieuse. Le répertoire moral de la douleur et de l’offense est plutôt une forme particulière de stratégie discursive par laquelle les détracteurs du projet Cordoue s’efforcent de faire durer la controverse, alors même que tout argument juridique ou technique permettant de motiver en raison l’opposition au centre culturel a disparu.
Origine : Fichiers éditeurs autorisés sur une archive ouverte