宗教制度主义:女权主义的回应

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
K. Chan
{"title":"宗教制度主义:女权主义的回应","authors":"K. Chan","doi":"10.3138/UTLJ-2020-0098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:People who are committed to religious freedom are generally also committed to protecting the conditions for the cultivation of religious life. Because of the deep linkages between religious belief and practice and religious institutions, it can seem natural and straightforward to move from championing religious freedom to championing religious freedom for religious institutions themselves. Members of the Supreme Court of Canada indicated their readiness to make this move in a 2015 case involving a Catholic secondary school in Quebec. In this article, I challenge the idea that according religious institutions section 2(a) protection in their own right is either a natural or a straightforward consequence of a commitment to collective religious freedom. I describe the intellectual history and characteristics of religious institutionalism and summarize the claims of its principal Canadian proponent. I then outline several ways in which religious institutionalism clashes with our basic constitutional commitments. Finally, I develop several prongs of a feminist response to religious institutionalism. I highlight the normative character of questions about the constitutional status of religious institutions, the gendered nature of the relationship between religious institutions and individual rights-holders, and the organic and dynamic features of religious institutions. I argue that we must approach institutional religious freedom claims cautiously and resist any interpretation of section 2(a) that would entrench and shield from internal resistance a singular, institutional religious voice.","PeriodicalId":46289,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Law Journal","volume":"71 1","pages":"443 - 479"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious institutionalism: A feminist response\",\"authors\":\"K. Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/UTLJ-2020-0098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:People who are committed to religious freedom are generally also committed to protecting the conditions for the cultivation of religious life. Because of the deep linkages between religious belief and practice and religious institutions, it can seem natural and straightforward to move from championing religious freedom to championing religious freedom for religious institutions themselves. Members of the Supreme Court of Canada indicated their readiness to make this move in a 2015 case involving a Catholic secondary school in Quebec. In this article, I challenge the idea that according religious institutions section 2(a) protection in their own right is either a natural or a straightforward consequence of a commitment to collective religious freedom. I describe the intellectual history and characteristics of religious institutionalism and summarize the claims of its principal Canadian proponent. I then outline several ways in which religious institutionalism clashes with our basic constitutional commitments. Finally, I develop several prongs of a feminist response to religious institutionalism. I highlight the normative character of questions about the constitutional status of religious institutions, the gendered nature of the relationship between religious institutions and individual rights-holders, and the organic and dynamic features of religious institutions. I argue that we must approach institutional religious freedom claims cautiously and resist any interpretation of section 2(a) that would entrench and shield from internal resistance a singular, institutional religious voice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"443 - 479\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/UTLJ-2020-0098\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/UTLJ-2020-0098","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:致力于宗教自由的人通常也致力于保护培养宗教生活的条件。由于宗教信仰和实践与宗教机构之间有着深刻的联系,从支持宗教自由转向支持宗教机构本身的宗教自由似乎是自然而直接的。加拿大最高法院成员在2015年魁北克一所天主教中学的案件中表示,他们准备采取这一行动。在这篇文章中,我质疑这样一种观点,即根据宗教机构第2(a)条,对其自身权利的保护要么是对集体宗教自由的承诺的自然结果,要么是直接结果。我描述了宗教制度主义的思想历史和特点,并总结了其主要支持者加拿大的主张。然后,我概述了宗教制度主义与我们的基本宪法承诺相冲突的几种方式。最后,我提出了女权主义对宗教制度主义的几种回应。我强调了宗教机构的宪法地位问题的规范性,宗教机构与个人权利持有人之间关系的性别性质,以及宗教机构的有机和动态特征。我认为,我们必须谨慎对待制度性宗教自由主张,抵制对第2(a)条的任何解释,因为这种解释会巩固和保护一个独特的制度性宗教声音,使其免受内部阻力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Religious institutionalism: A feminist response
Abstract:People who are committed to religious freedom are generally also committed to protecting the conditions for the cultivation of religious life. Because of the deep linkages between religious belief and practice and religious institutions, it can seem natural and straightforward to move from championing religious freedom to championing religious freedom for religious institutions themselves. Members of the Supreme Court of Canada indicated their readiness to make this move in a 2015 case involving a Catholic secondary school in Quebec. In this article, I challenge the idea that according religious institutions section 2(a) protection in their own right is either a natural or a straightforward consequence of a commitment to collective religious freedom. I describe the intellectual history and characteristics of religious institutionalism and summarize the claims of its principal Canadian proponent. I then outline several ways in which religious institutionalism clashes with our basic constitutional commitments. Finally, I develop several prongs of a feminist response to religious institutionalism. I highlight the normative character of questions about the constitutional status of religious institutions, the gendered nature of the relationship between religious institutions and individual rights-holders, and the organic and dynamic features of religious institutions. I argue that we must approach institutional religious freedom claims cautiously and resist any interpretation of section 2(a) that would entrench and shield from internal resistance a singular, institutional religious voice.
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
×
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