兄弟会作为对宗教自由的限制:S.A.S.诉法国案

E. Daly
{"title":"兄弟会作为对宗教自由的限制:S.A.S.诉法国案","authors":"E. Daly","doi":"10.1163/18710328-12341302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In upholding France’s ban on public face coverings, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the manifestation of religious beliefs could legitimately be restricted in the interests of ‘vivre ensemble’—literally, ‘living together’—or what I label ‘fraternalism’. I will argue that fraternalism, in the French setting, is closely linked to the idea of a duty of civility in political theory: it is understood as a duty to practice a certain kind of fraternal sociability. This paper relates the Court’s judgment to France’s justificatory, ‘republican’ discourse. It argues that civility must be understood as a habitus—a set of learned orientations and bodily techniques—rather than as a set of discursive or speech constraints. In turn, this demonstrates the danger in the idea of civility (or fraternalism) as limiting religious liberties: far from simply fostering republican virtues, it will reinforce cultural and social power dynamics.","PeriodicalId":168375,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Human Rights","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fraternalism as a Limitation on Religious Freedom: The Case of S.A.S. v. France\",\"authors\":\"E. Daly\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18710328-12341302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In upholding France’s ban on public face coverings, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the manifestation of religious beliefs could legitimately be restricted in the interests of ‘vivre ensemble’—literally, ‘living together’—or what I label ‘fraternalism’. I will argue that fraternalism, in the French setting, is closely linked to the idea of a duty of civility in political theory: it is understood as a duty to practice a certain kind of fraternal sociability. This paper relates the Court’s judgment to France’s justificatory, ‘republican’ discourse. It argues that civility must be understood as a habitus—a set of learned orientations and bodily techniques—rather than as a set of discursive or speech constraints. In turn, this demonstrates the danger in the idea of civility (or fraternalism) as limiting religious liberties: far from simply fostering republican virtues, it will reinforce cultural and social power dynamics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":168375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religion and Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religion and Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲人权法院支持法国禁止在公共场合蒙面的禁令,认为宗教信仰的表现可以合法地限制在“共同生活”的利益下——字面意思是“共同生活”——或者我所说的“博爱”。我认为,在法国的背景下,博爱主义与政治理论中的文明义务密切相关:它被理解为实践某种兄弟般的社交能力的义务。本文将法院的判决与法国的正当的“共和”话语联系起来。它认为,文明必须被理解为一种习惯——一套习得的取向和身体技巧——而不是一套话语或言语限制。反过来,这也表明了文明(或博爱)观念限制宗教自由的危险:它远非简单地培养共和美德,而是会加强文化和社会权力的动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fraternalism as a Limitation on Religious Freedom: The Case of S.A.S. v. France
In upholding France’s ban on public face coverings, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the manifestation of religious beliefs could legitimately be restricted in the interests of ‘vivre ensemble’—literally, ‘living together’—or what I label ‘fraternalism’. I will argue that fraternalism, in the French setting, is closely linked to the idea of a duty of civility in political theory: it is understood as a duty to practice a certain kind of fraternal sociability. This paper relates the Court’s judgment to France’s justificatory, ‘republican’ discourse. It argues that civility must be understood as a habitus—a set of learned orientations and bodily techniques—rather than as a set of discursive or speech constraints. In turn, this demonstrates the danger in the idea of civility (or fraternalism) as limiting religious liberties: far from simply fostering republican virtues, it will reinforce cultural and social power dynamics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信