MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2025993770 · doi:10.1353/tlj.2010.0001

Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context (review)

2010· article· en· W2025993770 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Anver M. Emon

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic sphereLawSecularismPluralism (philosophy)SociologyReasonable accommodationDemocracyPoliticsShariaPublic spaceContext (archaeology)Political scienceIslamTheologyPhilosophyEpistemologyHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context Anver M. Emon Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context ed. Peter Cane, Carolyn Evans, and Zoë Robinson Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 Pp. 328. ISBN: 978-0-521-42590-2 Does religion have a place in the public sphere? To begin to answer that question would first require a definition of 'religion' and 'public sphere' as well as an appreciation of what it means to be in the public sphere. As political theorists such as Jürgen Habermas have noted, religious discourse may, in fact, offer a substantive content that secular philosophy has not yet achieved.1 Such theorists call into question the assumptions we make about the nature and dominance of secularism in liberal democratic societies. In doing so, they offer an opening for the religiously devout to participate in the public sphere, while disagreeing on how wide that opening should be. Liberal democratic countries are no stranger to these debates. In Canada, the 'Sharia arbitration debate' in Ontario and Quebec's Reasonable Accommodation commission attest to the difficulties that can arise when religious groups seek accommodation of religious values and practices in different parts of the public sphere, whether in the workplace, in the legal system, or in the halls of government. Thus, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was the target of international outrage when he suggested that the British legal system must make room for the pluralism in the United Kingdom, in particular by making space for Sharia-based tribunals for devout Muslims seeking some form of religiously oriented resolution to a limited range of cases. Beyond creating space for pluralism in areas once deemed the exclusive preserve of the state, religious communities also make claims upon the political culture of a society. In 2006, European cities were beset with protests by angry Muslim upset over the publication of cartoons negatively depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The controversy fuelled ongoing debates about when the freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. The fact that these episodes involve Muslims and Islam is not a coincidence. Indeed, ever since the Muslim identity of the 9/11 attackers was confirmed, we have witnessed how the debates on religion and law [End Page 905] have taken on a special intensity. For those living in liberal democratic societies, the challenges of accommodating religion in the public sphere are often addressed alongside concerns about immigration and security. The negative effect of such an association is to see religion as both foreign and threatening. Religion is viewed as a destabilizing force that must be considered with considerable caution, if not decisively repelled. But to associate religion in the public sphere with foreign threat is more a matter of circumstance than an inherent feature of religion and religious experience in our world today. Indeed, to view religion as such is to blind ourselves to the ways in which religion has been and remains an important feature of the way in which citizens of a state render their lives meaningful. The editors of the anthology Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context are keenly aware of the problems that arise when considering religion in the public sphere as connected to issues on immigration and security. To avoid reductivism, they present articles that resonate in different registers that address matters of theory, history, and context. The first group of articles offers theoretical analyses of how the liberal democratic state should treat and contend with religion. Whether framed in terms of the freedom of religion or from religion, the theoretical contributions relate important conceptual challenges that arise when considering the place of and space for religion in a liberal state. The second group of articles offers a historical account of how these challenges have been addressed in the past, with examples drawn from the United States and the United Kingdom. The third and final set of articles looks at particular examples of the question of law and religion, such as debates over days of rest or conscientious objectors, to explore how the challenges related to law and religion reveal particular and important features of a given constitutional order. Specialists in the field...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,085

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,012
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0250,007

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,236
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207