{"title":"公私宗教伙伴关系的兴起:论证宗教公共资助时代的教会自治","authors":"Nahshon Perez","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwad022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Religion and government, following the influence of Locke and Madison are often considered two different institutions. As such, they function under different sets of rules. We argue that the ‘two institutions’ image and institutional reality are increasingly untenable. Rather, religion and government are intertwined in many democratic countries, including, growingly, in the US, that it would be more accurate to speak of the new norm of governmental–religious hybridity. Advances in data collected regarding religion–state relations, and the accumulation of court decisions in the US bring to the fore a new norm of religious–governmental hybridity. Such hybrid institutions are typically functionally religious associations; however, their funding is sourced in the government to create ‘public private religious partnerships’. If such a re-classification is justified, then norms of public law should apply to such religious associations. This bears substantial implications vis-a-vis central concepts used in political and legal circles regarding religious freedom; furthermore, this reclassification also bears upon an ongoing intellectual debate between scholars such as Chiara Cordelli—advocating democratization of religion, and Michael W. McConnell who advocated an opposing view: a strong version of church autonomy. So, this reclassification bears important implications for both scholarly debates and political issues.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Rise of Public–Private Religious Partnerships: Arguing Church Autonomy in the Era of Public Funding of Religion\",\"authors\":\"Nahshon Perez\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwad022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Religion and government, following the influence of Locke and Madison are often considered two different institutions. As such, they function under different sets of rules. We argue that the ‘two institutions’ image and institutional reality are increasingly untenable. Rather, religion and government are intertwined in many democratic countries, including, growingly, in the US, that it would be more accurate to speak of the new norm of governmental–religious hybridity. Advances in data collected regarding religion–state relations, and the accumulation of court decisions in the US bring to the fore a new norm of religious–governmental hybridity. Such hybrid institutions are typically functionally religious associations; however, their funding is sourced in the government to create ‘public private religious partnerships’. If such a re-classification is justified, then norms of public law should apply to such religious associations. This bears substantial implications vis-a-vis central concepts used in political and legal circles regarding religious freedom; furthermore, this reclassification also bears upon an ongoing intellectual debate between scholars such as Chiara Cordelli—advocating democratization of religion, and Michael W. McConnell who advocated an opposing view: a strong version of church autonomy. So, this reclassification bears important implications for both scholarly debates and political issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwad022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwad022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在洛克和麦迪逊的影响下,宗教和政府通常被视为两个不同的机构。因此,它们在不同的规则下运作。我们认为,"两个机构 "的形象和制度现实越来越站不住脚。相反,在许多民主国家,包括越来越多的美国,宗教与政府相互交织在一起,因此更准确的说法是政府与宗教混合的新规范。有关宗教与国家关系的数据收集的进展,以及美国法院判决的积累,使宗教与政府混合的新规范凸显出来。这种混合机构在功能上通常是宗教协会,但其资金来源是政府,以建立 "公私宗教伙伴关系"。如果这种重新分类是合理的,那么公法准则就应适用于这类宗教协会。这对政治和法律界使用的有关宗教自由的核心概念具有重大影响;此外,这一重新分类也与基娅拉-科尔德利(Chiara Cordell)--主张宗教民主化--和迈克尔-麦康奈尔(Michael W. McConnell)--主张强烈的教会自治--等学者之间正在进行的思想辩论有关。因此,这次重新分类对学术辩论和政治问题都有重要影响。
The Rise of Public–Private Religious Partnerships: Arguing Church Autonomy in the Era of Public Funding of Religion
Religion and government, following the influence of Locke and Madison are often considered two different institutions. As such, they function under different sets of rules. We argue that the ‘two institutions’ image and institutional reality are increasingly untenable. Rather, religion and government are intertwined in many democratic countries, including, growingly, in the US, that it would be more accurate to speak of the new norm of governmental–religious hybridity. Advances in data collected regarding religion–state relations, and the accumulation of court decisions in the US bring to the fore a new norm of religious–governmental hybridity. Such hybrid institutions are typically functionally religious associations; however, their funding is sourced in the government to create ‘public private religious partnerships’. If such a re-classification is justified, then norms of public law should apply to such religious associations. This bears substantial implications vis-a-vis central concepts used in political and legal circles regarding religious freedom; furthermore, this reclassification also bears upon an ongoing intellectual debate between scholars such as Chiara Cordelli—advocating democratization of religion, and Michael W. McConnell who advocated an opposing view: a strong version of church autonomy. So, this reclassification bears important implications for both scholarly debates and political issues.
期刊介绍:
Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.