Ulteriori informazioni
The book deals with three specific encounters between the law and religious commandments: separationism , composition , and cooperation (homeschooling, circumcision, the Get-laws ), and how legal practitioners handle hard cases on a pragmatic basis.
Its distinctiveness might me summarized as follows:
The book is based on 3 empirical real-life scenarios (see Introduction) involving confrontations between religious commandments and secular law; conflicts between fundamental principles of different normative orders.
Instead of asking how the liberal constitutionalism should normatively handle these cases (as the books and articles of my competitors listed below do), I suggest that the threshold between permissible / compatible religious practices is moving and should be treated contextually and pragmatically.
My main claim is that there is not one single version of secularism (or laïcité in the French context), but a multiplicity of possible dialogues between representatives of faith communities and representatives of the legal / political community.
My scenarios show that decisions are guided by a context-specific balance between democratic values, foremost equality and freedom. Sometimes these cardinal values conflict and judges must rank them. The articulation between religion and politics is not stable, not written in advance, not subsumable under a clear rule; legal principles are not hierarchically ordered a priori as all my cases show, even first-order principles (freedom/equality) must sometimes be weighed against each other.
I try to theorize each of these pragmatic interactions under the umbrella-concept of deliberalism and show that my scenarios display three different types of interaction between orders that range from a strong separation to outright cooperation.
The counterintuitive dimension of my book is to say that even in a very well-documented field, (Church and state-relations), secularism is not a thick concept, not a theory, but a practice.
Sommario
Part I The Letter Of The Law.- 1. Separate And Protect.- 2. What Neutrality?.- 3. American Crusade: The Tribulations Of A Christian Family.- 4. The Making Of A Citizen.- Part II The Body Of The Law.- 5. Another( S) Skin.- 6. A Nation Of Comics? From Criminal To Civil Law.- 7. Protecting Religious Communities.- 8. Protecting The Integrity Of Believers.- 9. The Meaning Of Toleration.- Part III The Gender Of The Law.- 10. Women In Chains : The Get In Jewish Law.- 11. Women Liberated By Civil Law?.- 12. Religion Within The Limits Of The Constitution.- 13. Law s Liberty: A Question Of Thresholds.- 14. Hard Cases: The Civil Execution Of Religious Contracts.- 15. An Unprecedented Cooperation: Bridging The Gap Between Civil And Religious Law.
Info autore
Astrid von Busekist is Professor of political theory, and researcher at the Center for International Studies (CERI) at Sciences Po, Paris. She is head of the political theory program at the graduate school, and the editor of Raisons Politiques. She has been visiting professor at the Goethe Universität Frankfurt (2020-2021), at New York University (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020), Tel Aviv University (2009-2011), and the Université Libre de Bruxelles (2001).
Riassunto
The book deals with three specific encounters between the law and religious commandments: “separationism”, “composition”, and “cooperation” (homeschooling, circumcision, the “Get-laws”), and how legal practitioners handle hard cases on a pragmatic basis.
Its distinctiveness might me summarized as follows:
The book is based on 3 empirical real-life scenarios (see Introduction) involving confrontations between religious commandments and secular law; conflicts between fundamental principles of different normative orders.
Instead of asking how the liberal constitutionalism should normatively handle these cases (as the books and articles of my competitors listed below do), I suggest that the threshold between permissible / compatible religious practices is moving and should be treated contextually and pragmatically.
My main claim is that there is not one single version of “secularism” (or “laïcité” in the French context), but a multiplicity of possible dialogues between representatives of faith communities and representatives of the legal / political community.
My scenarios show that decisions are guided by a context-specific balance between democratic values, foremost equality and freedom. Sometimes these cardinal values conflict and judges must rank them. The articulation between religion and politics is not stable, not written in advance, not subsumable under a clear rule; legal principles are not hierarchically ordered a priori as all my cases show, even first-order principles (freedom/equality) must sometimes be weighed against each other.
I try to theorize each of these pragmatic interactions under the umbrella-concept of “deliberalism” and show that my scenarios display three different types of interaction between orders that range from a strong separation to outright cooperation.
The counterintuitive dimension of my book is to say that even in a very well-documented field, (Church and state-relations), secularism is not a thick concept, not a theory, but a practice.
