The War Within Religion: Towards a More Nuanced Resolution of Religion–Equality Conflicts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, and many parts of Europe, conflicts between religious liberty and gender equality (including LGBTQ equality) are understood and analyzed as “culture wars.” This view has shaped the sociolegal understanding of the conflict—how the legal community makes sense of cases and interprets their social significance—and has narrowed the perceived scope of legal solutions to religion–equality conflicts to zero-sum, either–or decisions: either a carte blanche for religious objectors or a strict and universal enforcement of anti-discrimination law. Drawing on qualitative (N=41) and experimental (N=559) evidence from the United States and Israel and on cases from a range of countries and contexts, this Article makes two arguments: First, the understanding of religion–equality conflicts shall not be complete unless we recognize that they occur both between and within cultures. The two wars are connected in a feedback loop, as the struggle within religion influences what conflicts are waged at the culture war and what conflicts are resolved internally. Second, the war within religion has normative implications: in this struggle, religious communities form intermediate solutions to regulate—and mitigate—religion–equality conflicts. These policies can help expand the nuance and scope of legal solutions to the conflict. Showing how, this Article makes a timely intervention in a legal debate that struggles with setting clear rules and seeks to find more nuanced resolutions for the conflict.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it