Religion, Pluralism, and the Australian State after Same-Sex Marriage

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Ian Tregenza
{"title":"Religion, Pluralism, and the Australian State after Same-Sex Marriage","authors":"Ian Tregenza","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the passing of same-sex marriage legislation in 2017, religious freedom has become a prominent feature of Australian public debate. Overwhelmingly, such debates are conducted within a human rights framework where principles such as individual autonomy and protection from discrimination are prioritized over the communal and associational elements of religious life. This in turn tends to augment the power of the state vis-à-vis religious communities and institutions. In important respects, the dominance of human rights represents a new manifestation of the kind of “liberal-statism”—a public philosophy of liberal individualism that accepts the primacy of the state in the management of cultural and religious diversity—that has been a central feature of Australian religion–state relations over time. After some historical discussion of Australian church–state practice, this article argues for a reconsideration of a largely overlooked approach deriving from the English pluralists of the early twentieth century, which promoted greater degrees of group autonomy in relation to a rapidly growing state. It is argued that this tradition has greater potential in responding to the religious diversity of our time than does the current human rights approach with its tendency to reinforce an individualistic or privatized conception of religion, diminish associational life, and thereby reinforce state power.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the passing of same-sex marriage legislation in 2017, religious freedom has become a prominent feature of Australian public debate. Overwhelmingly, such debates are conducted within a human rights framework where principles such as individual autonomy and protection from discrimination are prioritized over the communal and associational elements of religious life. This in turn tends to augment the power of the state vis-à-vis religious communities and institutions. In important respects, the dominance of human rights represents a new manifestation of the kind of “liberal-statism”—a public philosophy of liberal individualism that accepts the primacy of the state in the management of cultural and religious diversity—that has been a central feature of Australian religion–state relations over time. After some historical discussion of Australian church–state practice, this article argues for a reconsideration of a largely overlooked approach deriving from the English pluralists of the early twentieth century, which promoted greater degrees of group autonomy in relation to a rapidly growing state. It is argued that this tradition has greater potential in responding to the religious diversity of our time than does the current human rights approach with its tendency to reinforce an individualistic or privatized conception of religion, diminish associational life, and thereby reinforce state power.
宗教、多元主义和同性婚姻后的澳大利亚国家
自2017年同性婚姻立法通过以来,宗教自由已成为澳大利亚公共辩论的一个突出特点。绝大多数情况下,此类辩论都是在人权框架内进行的,在这一框架内,个人自主和免受歧视等原则优先于宗教生活中的社区和结社要素。这反过来又倾向于加强国家对宗教团体和机构的权力。在一些重要方面,人权的主导地位代表了一种 "自由-国家主义 "的新表现形式--一种接受国家在管理文化和宗教多样性方面的首要地位的自由个人主义公共哲学--而这正是澳大利亚宗教与国家关系长期以来的一个核心特征。在对澳大利亚教会与国家的实践进行了一些历史性讨论之后,本文主张重新考虑一种在很大程度上被忽视的方法,这种方法源自二十世纪初的英国多元主义者,他们提倡在与快速发展的国家的关系中实现更大程度的群体自治。本文认为,与当前的人权方法相比,这一传统在应对我们时代的宗教多样性方面具有更大的潜力,因为当前的人权方法倾向于强化个人主义或私有化的宗教观念,削弱结社生活,从而加强国家权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Church and State is concerned with what has been called the "greatest subject in the history of the West." It seeks to stimulate interest, dialogue, research, and publication in the broad area of religion and the state. JCS publishes constitutional, historical, philosophical, theological, and sociological studies on religion and the body politic in various countries and cultures of the world, including the United States. Each issue features, in addition to a timely editorial, five or more major articles, and thirty-five to forty reviews of significant books related to church and state. Periodically, important ecclesiastical documents and government texts of legislation and/or court decisions are also published."
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信