Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a growing recognition of the challenge that religions pose for pluralist, multicultural democracies. ‘Fundamentalist’ beliefs and practices test the limits of religious freedom, and seem to contradict the very basis on which liberal states protect religious liberty. Religions, moreover, are often associated with intolerance and persecution, yet insist upon religious liberty for themselves. This book inverts these stereotypes by presenting a sustained critique of how religious liberty ought to be understood in liberal legal systems and develops an alternative, Christian response. The prevailing liberal approach to religious freedom is compared with historic and contemporary understandings developed by Christian theorists, and an alternative principled basis for religious liberty, from a distinctively Christian position, is developed. The variety of stances the liberal state may take towards organised religions are analysed, and the nature of the guarantees for religious freedom in domestic and international law is explained. The difficult question of precisely when and how far religious liberty should be limited is also considered. This book also deals with concrete contemporary controversies involving the recognition and protection of religious beliefs and conduct, looking at issues such as family and parenting, medical treatment, education, employment, religious group autonomy, and freedom of expression and protest. Extensive reference is made throughout the analysis to UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the laws of other jurisdictions such as the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".