{"title":"作为联合行动的集体宗教自由:社会学概念如何帮助理解法理学","authors":"Amy Swiffen","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Religious freedom is protected by section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Historically, the right has been understood in individual terms, though the courts have acknowledged a collective dimension to religion as expressed in a community of believers. Yet, the precise meaning of collective religious freedom has not been fully fleshed out. The current case law only encompasses a limited range of forms of collective religious expression and does not articulate a coherent theory as to why some collective 2(a) claims succeed while others fail. This paper draws on concepts from interpretive sociology to help clarify the existing jurisprudence and reveal a tension that is otherwise invisible over the status of volition/voluntariness in the collective religious freedom framework. Addressing this tension can help rationalize the Court’s jurisprudence and give resources to critics looking to change how the law encompasses collective religious experience.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"36 1","pages":"467 - 482"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cls.2021.10","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collective Religious Freedom as Associational Action: How Sociological Concepts Can Help Make Sense of the Jurisprudence\",\"authors\":\"Amy Swiffen\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cls.2021.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Religious freedom is protected by section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Historically, the right has been understood in individual terms, though the courts have acknowledged a collective dimension to religion as expressed in a community of believers. Yet, the precise meaning of collective religious freedom has not been fully fleshed out. The current case law only encompasses a limited range of forms of collective religious expression and does not articulate a coherent theory as to why some collective 2(a) claims succeed while others fail. This paper draws on concepts from interpretive sociology to help clarify the existing jurisprudence and reveal a tension that is otherwise invisible over the status of volition/voluntariness in the collective religious freedom framework. Addressing this tension can help rationalize the Court’s jurisprudence and give resources to critics looking to change how the law encompasses collective religious experience.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Society\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"467 - 482\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cls.2021.10\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.10\",\"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":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Collective Religious Freedom as Associational Action: How Sociological Concepts Can Help Make Sense of the Jurisprudence
Abstract Religious freedom is protected by section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Historically, the right has been understood in individual terms, though the courts have acknowledged a collective dimension to religion as expressed in a community of believers. Yet, the precise meaning of collective religious freedom has not been fully fleshed out. The current case law only encompasses a limited range of forms of collective religious expression and does not articulate a coherent theory as to why some collective 2(a) claims succeed while others fail. This paper draws on concepts from interpretive sociology to help clarify the existing jurisprudence and reveal a tension that is otherwise invisible over the status of volition/voluntariness in the collective religious freedom framework. Addressing this tension can help rationalize the Court’s jurisprudence and give resources to critics looking to change how the law encompasses collective religious experience.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Journal of Law and Society is pleased to announce that it has a new home and editorial board. As of January 2008, the Journal is housed in the Law Department at Carleton University. Michel Coutu and Mariana Valverde are the Journal’s new co-editors (in French and English respectively) and Dawn Moore is now serving as the Journal’s Managing Editor. As always, the journal is committed to publishing high caliber, original academic work in the field of law and society scholarship. CJLS/RCDS has wide circulation and an international reputation for showcasing quality scholarship that speaks to both theoretical and empirical issues in sociolegal studies.