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.     

Religious Conscientious Exemptions

Several possible approaches can be applied by the state when it responds to religious conscientious objections. These approaches compare the response to religious-conscientious objections with that to non-religious objections. If the content of the objector’s conscience is significant when deciding to grant conscientious exemptions, three approaches to the practice of granting conscientious exemptions are possible: First, a non-neutral liberal approach that takes into consideration the content of the conscience but not its religiosity as such; second, a pro-religious approach; and third, an anti-religious approach. This paper contends that the non-neutral liberal approach and the pro-religious approach should be rejected in favor of an anti-religious approach to granting conscientious exemptions. The proposed anti-religious approach is as follows: (1) unjustified intolerance should not be tolerated; (2) empirical evidence links religion and intolerance – that is, people’s responses to measures of religion and intolerance are closely related; (3) theoretical evidence links (some) religions and intolerance; and (4) the religiosity of conscience gives the state a reason to refuse to grant conscientious exemptions.     

论宗教宽容的政治化和法律化

宽容思想发源于宗教,《圣经》、《古兰经》、儒教和佛教的学说都包含有内在深刻的宽容思想。宗教宽容的政治化和法律化主要开始于17世纪洛克和培尔等学者的倡导,最终在美国的宪法及其修正案中得到了较好的体现。但是,这一进程在伊斯兰国家和中国却长期未能得以顺利实现,宽容的实践仍然主要停留在宗教的层面。这是导致我国、伊斯兰国家和西方在政治、法律等领域出现本质差异的根本原因之一,也是宗教宽容在我国和伊斯兰国家仍然需要世俗化的主要理由。     

Religious Characteristics and the Death Penalty

Using one mock trial scenario, this study investigated whether religious and demographic factors were related to death penalty attitudes and sentencing verdicts. Those who favored the death penalty differed from those who had doubts about the penalty in gender, affiliation, fundamentalism, evangelism, literal Biblical interpretism, beliefs about God’s attitudes toward murders, and perceptions of how their religious groups felt about the death penalty. These relationships generally held after mock jurors were death qualified. Gender, fundamentalism, literal interpretism, beliefs about God’s death penalty position, and perceptions of how one’s religious group felt about the death penalty predicted death penalty sentencing verdicts. Future research could determine whether using peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on religion can help lawyers choose a more favorable jury. The present research was supported by the National Science Foundation award number 0351811, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the American Psychology-Law Society, and the University of Nebraska Law-Psychology Program. This research was presented at the 2006 conference of the American Psychology-Law Society. The authors are grateful for the research assistance of Nick Fanning and Beth Herschlag and for the helpful comments from Brian Bornstein, Rich Wiener, Bob Schopp, Dick Dienstbier, and several anonymous reviewers.     

Jurisprudence and Communication: Secular and Religious

In considering Van Schooten’s study of the Eric O. case (s.1), I ask whether the different approaches taken by the two different “legal institutions”—the prosecuting authorities on the one hand, the courts on the other—are reflective of different images of warfare (a semantic difference) or of the different images each group holds of its own role (a pragmatic difference). If we consider these two “legal institutions” as distinct semiotic groups (s.2), is there an inevitable “communication deficit” (Van Schooten) between them (and the public) and how does this relate to the Hartian account of such a “crisis in communication” (s.3)? I agree with Van Schooten about the role of underlying images in the construction of legal sense, and relate this to the issue of intuitional judgment, both in and outside the law (s.4). I then turn to comparable issues which arise in my other research area, Jewish law, which reflects quite different ideological premises (s.5), reviewing the original (biblical) conception of the (intuitive) role and functions of judges (s.5A), decision-making, justification and consequentialist ethics in postbiblical Jewish law (s.5B), and the conclusions drawn, not least for the pragmatics of communication, in a recent research study on the wife’s rights in divorce. Paradoxically, I argue (s.5C), that the system rests at base on trust rather than objective truth. But trust, too, is a form of meaning, and susceptible to semiotic analysis. I suggest, in conclusion (s.6), that this is an issue which should be treated more seriously in the theory of secular law and legal communication.     

Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case

This article examines a criminal trial in Brazil that touched on the imagined role of religion in public life. The case involved a Protestant minister accused of religious discrimination and of vilipending an image of Nossa Senhora Aparecida, the patron saint of Brazil. The prosecution argued and the court concurred that the minister's iconoclastic verbal and physical gestures endangered the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Yet the defense claimed that his actions, stemming from his religious convictions, expressed this same principle of freedom. Different visions of religious free-dom are at stake in the case as well as how such freedom relates to the rights and private lives of citizens. Placed in the history of church-state relations in Brazil, the case raises the problem of interpreting concepts of religious pluralism, religious freedom, and freedom of expression in Brazilian law.     

Religious Tolerance and Freedom in Continental Europe

The author analyses the problems faced by Continental Europe's legal systems as a result of the appearance of the so-called new religious movements. He is of the opinion that the expected change towards the achievement of full legal neutrality regarding the religious phenomena cannot be based on the sole assumption that each and every religion deserves protection. In fact, he considers that any system of equality should be aimed at protecting the legitimate expression of the individual's free will; that is to say, neither a particular religion nor all of them, but the person considered as a citizen, regardless of whether he believes or not.     

Religious and Spiritual Support,Reentry, and Risk

Systems and agencies intent on pursuing an evidence-based approach to correctional interventions have widely adopted the risk principle. For a variety of reasons, many studies have found that giving treatment to low risk people has little impact on reducing recidivism and can even increase recidivism. Because of the risk principle, many prison and community correctional systems now target their treatment resources to medium and high risk. This study tests whether the effects of religious/spiritual support on reentry success generalize across offenders as a function of risk. Results from random effects count models suggest that religious and spiritual support does have a strong and robust effect on the likelihood of ex-offenders desisting from substance abuse. Findings also reveal that the risk principle was not supported; religious and social support was associated with significantly lower levels of substance abuse among low risk offenders, but not among higher-risk offenders. On the other hand, religious and spiritual support did not significantly relate to criminal offending at any risk level. Implications for religious programming and services, as well as the study of religion and reentry, are discussed.     

Two Misunderstandings About Public Justification and Religious Reasons

Two important objections have been raised against exclusivist public reason (EPR). First, it has been argued that EPR entails an unjust burden for citizens who want to appeal to non-public reasons, especially religious reasons. Second, it has been argued that EPR is based on a problematic conception of religious reasons and that it ignores the fact that religious reasons can be public as well. I defend EPR against both objections. I show that the first objection conflates two ideas of public justification (public justification as a conception of political legitimacy and public justification as an ideal of civility) and that the second objection conflates two ways to understand and identify religious reasons. Ultimately, it turns out that those who defend such objections actually share the concerns that justified EPR in the first place. In other words, if we are clear about the idea of public justification and the kind of religious reasons that EPR is really about, it appears that justificatory liberals are in fact all exclusivists.     

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。     

Incitement to Religious Hatred and the ‹Symbolic’: How Will the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 Work?

This article examines the new offence of inciting religious hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A historical analysis of existing provisions aimed at legislating against racial hatred and blasphemy is adopted, in order to determine whether the creation of this new offence is justified and necessary. We conclude that although the new offence may fulfil an important symbolic role in a post September 11th environment, in its current form the legislation has not taken sufficient account of the precedent of racial hatred and blasphemy laws, or of more general questions about the criminalisation of hatred.     

The Influence of Religious Personal Identity on the Relationships Among Religious Dissimilarity,Value Dissimilarity,and Job Satisfaction

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of religious dissimilarity and religious personal identity on one’s job satisfaction. Data were collected from 260 top managers. Structural equation modeling indicated that religious dissimilarity positively affected perceived value dissimilarity from others, which in turn, held a negative association with job satisfaction. These effects were qualified, however, by a significant religious dissimilarity × religious personal identity interaction such that, for persons whose religious beliefs were a central part of who they were, being religiously different from others in the workplace strongly impacted their perceived value dissimilarity. Research contributions and practical implications are discussed.     

西夏的宗教法

西夏有较为完备的宗教法,且独具特色。西夏法律对佛教、道教加以保护,有严格的管理规定,西夏宗教法律制度对僧人的封号及对僧人道士的赐衣、试经度僧和度牒进行了规定,西夏出现了中国最早的帝师封号,西夏法律还规定了僧人道士所享有的权利及其应承担的义务。