The Case for Religious Inclusivism and the Judicial Recognition of Associational Rights: A Response to Lenta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jurisprudence in South Africa and Canada has been developing in a way that privileges individual religious autonomy over the communal dimension of rights to religious freedom and practice. In this paper, the intersection between law and religious freedom in both of these countries is explored. A reductive, anti-religious conception of the secular has taken hold in modern jurisprudence, limiting society’s ability to adopt an inclusive and tolerant pluralistic model. The Courts in South Africa and Canada are exhorted to address the communal nature of religious belief and reject the individualistic approach that has dominated their jurisprudence thus far. This paper also considers the problem of how to define religion, arguing that a minimum quorum of sincere believers united in a religious community is necessary to attract religious rights protections.
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 | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".