Equality as a Basis for Religious Toleration: A Response to Leiter

In this short essay, I respond to Brian Leiter’s Why Tolerate Religion. I focus on two criticisms. First, I argue that Leiter’s own theory depends on an unacknowledged ideal of equality, and that equality is central to the utilitarian and Rawlsian bases for religious toleration that he draws upon in his book. Second, I argue against Leiter’s allowing, in certain circumstances, the state to establish religion and to promote religious conceptions of the good.     

From Status Politics to Technocratic Pluralism: Toleration of Religious Minorities in Canada

This paper examines patterns of public regulation as they may emerge throughout the West from controversies constructed around new and minority religions. Following Beckford's and Richardson's insights about the sociological exemplarity of these issues, we argue that evidence for some of these trends as well as clues for interpretation can be found in contemporary Canadian constitutional development that parallels and at times precedes that of Europe. Close examination of notions of society and religion found in more than 35 religion cases brought before the Canadian Supreme Court from 1951 to 1997 lead to the conclusion that beside governmental and parliamentary intervention, legal management of religious pluralism is assuming a decisively normative turn. Notions such as status politics, civic ethos, and technocratic pluralism are offered as an explanation of this trend.     

Toleration and Recognition

The author asks: Is there a case for redefining toleration as the recognition of excluded identities? He is inclined to answer no. Liberal democratic states, should of course recognise disfavoured groups by registering the normality of their members and the justice of their claims but must resist recognition in any stronger sense. Appropriate recognition consists in confronting the live contemporary issues of exclusion and of ethnic and national injustice by compensatory policies and constitutional innovations.     

Some Remarks on the Concept of Toleration

The paper contains a conceptual analysis of "act of toleration" and the property of "being tolerant". Being tolerant is understood as a dispositional property of persons manifested in what the author calls the "circumstances of toleration". The main circumstances distinguished are: a tendency to prohibit a certain behaviour and the competence to determine the deontic status of the behaviour in question. An act of toleration, then, consists in not prohibiting (or cancelling the prohibition of) that behaviour. It is argued that this requires the existence of two different normative systems, the "basic system", and the "justifying system". Acts of toleration must be based on reasons coming from the latter. This insight enables one to establish a difference between reasonable and unreasonable toleration, as well as between toleration and related concepts like indifference, acquiescence, etc. The analysis also introduces the distinction between "vertical" and "horizontal" toleration. Acceptance of this last category implies that toleration does not necessarily require hierarchical relationships between those who tolerate and those whose actions are tolerated.     

Contemporary Pluralism and Toleration

The author outlines a conception of toleration as recognition of differences which she argues to be more adequate than current liberal views in order to face issues arising from contemporary pluralism. The liberal conception of toleration as freedom from government's interference in certain areas is appropriate if pluralism is conceived of as a plurality of conflicting conceptions of the good. By contrast, if pluralism is understood as the plurality of groups and cultures, asymmetrically situated in democratic society, then the issues underlying toleration are seen as the contested claim of minorities for asserting their different identity in the public space. Public toleration of differences is thus viewed as a symbolic public gesture of inclusion of the different identities and their bearers into democratic citizenship on an equal footing as members of minority groups. The argument supporting public toleration is so founded on reason of justice.     

Some Comments on Toleration

My comments will focus basically on Leader's paper. First, I will make some semantic remarks about the uses of the word "toleration"; second, I will offer some criticisms of Leader's paper; and, finally, I will put forward the outline of a modest proposal.     

Toleration without Liberal Foundations

The author's aim is to find principles grounding and limiting toleration that are sufficiently sensitive to the variety of distinct settings in which concrete problems arise, and to produce principles which can appeal both to liberals and to non-liberals. The range of settings is covered by fixing the nature of three distinct species of the genus right to toleration. Once these rights are analysed, an attempt is made to see what agreement about them can be reached by liberals and non-liberals if they have a common commitment to democracy. A definition of democracy is produced that, it is argued, liberals and non-liberals would have difficulty rejecting. It is then explored as a definition that has definite consequences over the three rights to toleration, putting the opponents before a choice: either to accept their preferred content for the right to toleration, or to support a democratic policy.     

罪犯的宗教信仰处遇论略

宗教信仰权利是现代法治国家必须保障的公民权 ,而罪犯的宗教信仰权利保障有无最易凸现出社会的法治或人治的特征 ,罪犯处遇制度移植引进宗教教诲成为依法治监的时代要求。     

浅谈发明或实用新型专利侵权的判断原则

专利法第十一条规定:“发明和实用新型专利权被授予后,除本法另有规定的以外,任何单位或者个人未经专利权人许可,都不得实施其专利,即不得为生产经营目的制造、使用、许诺销售、销售、进口其专利产品,或者使用其专利方法以及使用、许诺销售、销售、进口依照该专利方法直接获得的产品。” 专利法第五十七条规定:“未经专利权人许可,实施其专利即侵犯其专利权,……” 按照专利法的上述规定,构成侵犯发明或者实用新型专利权必须满足5项条件: 1.在专利权被授予以后; 2.未经专利权人许可; 3.为了生产经营目的;     

论公用企业滥用垄断力行为

随着人民生活水平的提高和社会经济的迅猛发展,公用企业在向社会提供服务过程中存在的诸多问题越来越受到人们的关注,其中倍受争议的就是公用企业滥用垄断力问题。对公用企业垄断力的获得方式以及公用企业滥用垄断力行为的内含、特征、主要表现形式及其危害性的认识,是正确判断和有效规制该种行为的重要前提。     

Toleration and Law: Historical Aspects

Strictly speaking the law cannot admit toleration: It cannot tolerate ideas or behaviour which are contrary to its requirements. This logic explains why for centuries civilizations found no place for toleration. Then in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, philosophers and thinkers such as Spinoza, Locke, Bayle and later Voltaire or Malesherbes advocated tolerance, certain aspects of which were to be introduced into the legislation of many countries: freedom of opinion, the free movement of persons, freedom of assembly and of religion.     

浅论实用新型专利创造性的判断标准

一、绪论为了能够保护发明创造专利权,鼓励发明创造,并且能够通过法律手段促进发明创造的推广应用,促进科学技术的发展,我国于1985年4月1日正式实施了专利保护制度。根据中国专利法第二条的有关规定,中国政府将给予专利保护的发明创造分为三类,即发明、实用新型和外观设计。而且,在中国专利法实施细则第二条中进一步指明,专利法所称发明,是指对产品、方法或者其改进所提出的新的技术方案。专利法所称实用新型,是指对产品的形状、构造或者其结合所提出的适于实用的新的技术方案。     

世界三大宗教法之比较研究

世界三大宗教法--古印度法、教会法和伊斯兰教法最初根源于对神的信仰,在表现形式上与宗教本身密不可分,在内容上与宗教教规教义和宗教典籍密切相联,但是其内涵与价值各不相同.在一定的历史条件下,三大宗教法对社会生活发挥了极其重要的作用,对后世世俗立法产生了不同的影响.在当今世界法制史苑里,三大宗教法独具特色,在经历了改革浪潮的洗礼后,逐步走上现代文明法制的轨道,这种改革留给我们深深的思索.     

关于发明和实用新型专利的保护范围

专利权是一种民事权利。民事权利由权利主体、权利客体和权利内容诸要素构成。专利权的权利主体是依法取得专利权的自然人、法人或者其他组织;权利客体是被授予专利权的发明创造,包括发明、实用新型和外观设计三种类型;权利内     

新加坡宗教事务的法律治理

新加坡是东西方文明的交汇之地,妥善处理不同种族、宗教之间的关系至关重要。在对本国多元宗教、多元民族的基本国情充分认知的基础上,新加坡政府采取了务实的宗教政策。通过宪法和宗教自由法确立了政教分离、宗教自由和平等保护原则,制定了维护宗教和谐法,实现了宗教间的和谐与容忍,为世界各国宗教事务的法律治理树立了典范。     

Toleration and the Law in the West 1500–1700

Before the emergence of the concept of individual rights, in the eighteenth century, toleration was conceded by states only to the corporations that constituted the state. Many states that, like France after the Edict of Nantes, conceded a form of toleration, did so without accepting the principle of toleration. The recognition or toleration of rights for individuals first became possible only in a wholly secularised society such as that of colonial north America.     

The Role of Perceived Deservingness in the Toleration of Human Rights Violations

Based on evidence that people have a strong need to see that individuals get what they deserve, we reasoned that people will tolerate a human rights violation to the extent that they believe the target of the violation deserves severe treatment. Thus, we expected that variables that influence the perceived deservingness of a target (i.e., “contextual cues” to deservingness) should influence toleration of a violation of the target’s rights, mediated by perceptions of the target’s deservingness. We also expected that the effect of a contextual cue to targets’ deservingness on toleration should occur even for people who support the violated right in the abstract. Across two studies, using student versus community samples, we measured participants’ abstract support for the right to humane treatment. We then presented participants with scenarios about a target who was tortured (a violation of the right to humane treatment), and manipulated a contextual cue to the targets’ deservingness for severe treatment—the moral reprehensibility of the targets’ past behavior. Participants tolerated a target’s torture more if he had engaged in highly morally reprehensible (vs. less reprehensible) behavior and, thus, was perceived to deserve more severe treatment. Participants’ abstract support for the right to humane treatment did not moderate the effect of moral reprehensibility on toleration. Our findings highlight the importance of perceived deservingness in the toleration of human rights violations and have implications for reducing such toleration. Our research also extends literature on deservingness to an important global issue.     

Religious Freedom and Religious Antidiscrimination

This article develops a theoretical framework that prompts a new understanding of the role of religious freedom and religious antidiscrimination in human rights law. Proceeding from the prevailing theoretical and doctrinal uncertainty over the relationship between the two rights, which are currently seen as either synonymous or as distinct and in competition, the article develops an account of the moral right to ethical independence and argues that religious freedom and religious antidiscrimination share their main normative basis on that moral right. However, religious freedom and religious antidiscrimination have different emphasis, and both are essential to secure fair background circumstances for the pursuit of different individual plans of life. The proposed framework illuminates the relationship of individual and collective aspects of religious freedom with discrimination law. The analysis has crucial implications for human rights interpretation in cases involving state interference with liberty, in relation to religion or belief, and more broadly.     

论民法中的集合物及其现代应用

我国《物权法》以不动产和动产作为物权的客体缺乏普适性。作为物权客体的物,应有多种法定的分类,集合物就是相当必要和重要的一种物的类型。国有财产、集体财产和私人财产以及企业,都符合集合物的构成要求;它们之所以能作为物权的客体,是要适用统一的法律关系。上述几种集合物可以依法成立归属意义的所有权法律关系和担保法律关系。集合物的这种意义能够起到民法上的确权和保护作用。建立多样化的物的分类体系应当成为我国未来的立法趋势。     

Pierre Bayle, the Rights of the Conscience, the "Remedy" of Toleration

Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) is often considered one of the staunchest defenders of toleration, especially in the domain of religion. His Commentaire philosophique , published in 1686, one year after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, argued for a broad idea of toleration, to be extended with no exceptions to all sects and religions. However, his thought can hardly be reduced to an exaltation of the "rights of the conscience," for he realized very soon that such an exaltation risks bringing forth religious fanatism, which in turn is the cause of religious wars and acts of violence. Toleration, in these conditions, is only a political remedy for the sickness of the human mind.