양심적 병역거부와 정교분리: 네오프래그머티즘의관점에서 재해석한 법과 종교의 공존

There remain a significant number of critics around conscientious objectors, although Constitutional Court and Supreme Court have most recently ruled in their favor. These critics reflect the so-called libertarian mind which has been of influence in Korean society. The libertarians regard the public area as an important territory in the history of mankind to a larger degree, while banishing the private area from the central discourse of history. Thus,their interpretation of history has marginalized the private and enlarged the importance of the public. I do not support this interpretation, in align with the view of neo-pragmatists who seek a harmonious coexistence between the two areas. The private area is as valuable as the public, and it has to be preserved in a comparable manner as the public area, as much as it is possible. Therefore, the pragmatic conscientious objectors ought not to and should feel no need to renounce their beliefs, but rather labor to advocate their beliefs by reflective use of the vocabulary of the private area. Through a more pragmatic interpretation, the rulings of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court can have a more positive reception by the people, and the voices of conscientious objectors can be coherent.