Can There Be Legitimate Pluralism in Modes of Protecting Religions and Their Freedom? the Cases of Canada and South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a report to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences Plenary, Universal Rights in a World of Diversity: The Case of Religious Freedom (Spring 2011) ed. by Mary Ann Glendon and Hans F. Zacher, this paper, subsequently published in the Acta No. 17 of the Academy (2012), reviewed developments in law and religion in Canada and South Africa, The paper is divided in three parts. 1) the framework for understanding religion and the public sphere with particular focus on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Chamberlain (2002, re-examining the meaning of a secular society); 2) a review of the constitutional provisions regarding religion and related rights in both countries; and 3) the experience of inter-faith co-operation in litigation and the development of the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms as examples of civil-society initiatives that can inform politics and law in relation to religious pluralism. The paper concludes by observing that the current phase in constitutional democracies is a kind of tug-of-war between convergence and accommodation of difference, between subsidiarity that respects associational differences and forms of statism that rejects them in favour of legally mandated uniformity. It suggests that both theocratic and statist atheistically or agnostically dominant approaches to law and policy should be avoided; that religion is best understood as propositional rather than impositional; and that law and politics need to become more respectful of the social and cultural goods offered by associational diversity. These goods, particularly those that emanate from religious communities, have to date been recognized more fully in certain South African decisions than Canadian ones.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".