锅里的青蛙:美国无神论与最高法院意识形态的测温

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
E. Quillen
{"title":"锅里的青蛙:美国无神论与最高法院意识形态的测温","authors":"E. Quillen","doi":"10.1558/IMRE.37956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1940s, atheists have played an essential role in re-defining American religion. They have been directly responsible for abolishing sectarian religious education from American public schools. For removing prayer from public schools. For restricting the use of belief affirmations by Americans elected or appointed to federal office. For amending the federal government's definition of \"religious training and belief \" so that they too might excuse themselves from military service. They have also challenged the theological language of the Pledge of Allegiance, federal funding for faith-based social service programs, and prayer invocations at official legislative meetings. And even on their own, these seven examples tell an exceptional story about American Atheism. But they tell another one as well. Across the sixty-six years in which they were considered by the United States Supreme Court, the Court itself underwent an ideological turn. From \"equal justice under law,\" to justice according to political principles. And from enforcing the separation of church and state, to defending religious establishments in the name of \"tradition.\" By using the first to gauge the progress of the second, this article will tell these two stories.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frog in a Pot: American Atheism and the Thermometry of Supreme Court Ideology\",\"authors\":\"E. Quillen\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/IMRE.37956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the 1940s, atheists have played an essential role in re-defining American religion. They have been directly responsible for abolishing sectarian religious education from American public schools. For removing prayer from public schools. For restricting the use of belief affirmations by Americans elected or appointed to federal office. For amending the federal government's definition of \\\"religious training and belief \\\" so that they too might excuse themselves from military service. They have also challenged the theological language of the Pledge of Allegiance, federal funding for faith-based social service programs, and prayer invocations at official legislative meetings. And even on their own, these seven examples tell an exceptional story about American Atheism. But they tell another one as well. Across the sixty-six years in which they were considered by the United States Supreme Court, the Court itself underwent an ideological turn. From \\\"equal justice under law,\\\" to justice according to political principles. And from enforcing the separation of church and state, to defending religious establishments in the name of \\\"tradition.\\\" By using the first to gauge the progress of the second, this article will tell these two stories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implicit Religion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implicit Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/IMRE.37956\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implicit Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/IMRE.37956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自20世纪40年代以来,无神论者在重新定义美国宗教方面发挥了重要作用。他们对废除美国公立学校的宗派宗教教育负有直接责任。禁止公立学校祈祷。限制当选或被任命担任联邦公职的美国人使用信仰确认书。修改联邦政府对“宗教训练和信仰”的定义,这样他们也可以借口不服兵役。他们还质疑效忠誓词中的神学语言,质疑联邦政府对基于信仰的社会服务项目的资助,质疑官方立法会议上的祈祷。即使单独来看,这七个例子也讲述了一个关于美国无神论的特殊故事。但他们也会告诉另一个人。在美国最高法院审理这些案件的66年里,最高法院本身也经历了意识形态的转变。从“法律之下的平等正义”到根据政治原则的正义。从强制政教分离,到以“传统”的名义捍卫宗教机构。通过使用第一种方法来衡量第二种方法的进展,本文将讲述这两个故事。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Frog in a Pot: American Atheism and the Thermometry of Supreme Court Ideology
Since the 1940s, atheists have played an essential role in re-defining American religion. They have been directly responsible for abolishing sectarian religious education from American public schools. For removing prayer from public schools. For restricting the use of belief affirmations by Americans elected or appointed to federal office. For amending the federal government's definition of "religious training and belief " so that they too might excuse themselves from military service. They have also challenged the theological language of the Pledge of Allegiance, federal funding for faith-based social service programs, and prayer invocations at official legislative meetings. And even on their own, these seven examples tell an exceptional story about American Atheism. But they tell another one as well. Across the sixty-six years in which they were considered by the United States Supreme Court, the Court itself underwent an ideological turn. From "equal justice under law," to justice according to political principles. And from enforcing the separation of church and state, to defending religious establishments in the name of "tradition." By using the first to gauge the progress of the second, this article will tell these two stories.
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
Implicit Religion
Implicit Religion RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
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