THE (NOT SO) EXCEPTIONAL ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Since the end of World War II and the beginning of the human rights era, a common narrative has dominated international discussions of law and religion, especially in Europe, that emphasizes the alleged idiosyncrasy and uniqueness of U.S. Constitutional law regarding freedom of religion. What I call...
| Другие заглавия: | Symposium: The Legitimate Scope of Religious Establishment |
|---|---|
| Главный автор: | |
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2018]
|
| В: |
Journal of law and religion
Год: 2018, Том: 33, Выпуск: 2, Страницы: 137-154 |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Establishment Clause
B Established Church B United States B Europe B Religious Liberty |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Итог: | Since the end of World War II and the beginning of the human rights era, a common narrative has dominated international discussions of law and religion, especially in Europe, that emphasizes the alleged idiosyncrasy and uniqueness of U.S. Constitutional law regarding freedom of religion. What I call the "standard story" notes that unlike human rights instruments, and the constitutions of most European States, the U.S. Constitution contains an "Establishment Clause" prohibiting an establishment of religion, while European countries do not have prohibitions on state establishments, and indeed the relationships between religion and the state fall along a continuum running from cooperation, favored religions, to actual state establishments of religion. According to the standard story, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. First Amendment is a precursor of and has analogues in the human rights instruments' provisions protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, but the Establishment Clause is characterized as being sui generis, a thing unto itself. The U.S. experience with the antiestablishment principle, symbolized by Jefferson's wall of separation, the standard story notes, is so unique and so different that the lessons gleaned there have very little to offer Europe, or indeed perhaps the rest of the world. In this article I argue, as my title suggests, that the American experience is not as unique as some (especially Europeans) sometimes think it is. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2163-3088 |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Journal of law and religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/jlr.2018.33 |