Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law
This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. M...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Taieb, Julien [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
The Berkeley Electronic Press ; 2005 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Global jurist / Advances - Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001, 4.2005, 3, art1 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:4 ; year:2005 ; number:3 ; pages:1 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ219553998 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ219553998 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210707085659.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 090716s2005 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ219553998 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 044 | |c XD-US | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Taieb, Julien |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law |
| 264 | 1 | |b The Berkeley Electronic Press |c 2005 | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. | ||
| 533 | |f Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a French Law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a American Law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Religious Freedom | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Secularism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Constitutional Law | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Global jurist / Advances |d Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 |g 4.2005, 3, art1 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 |w (DE-600)2115502-1 |x 1535-1661 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:4 |g year:2005 |g number:3 |g pages:1 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-BEP | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 4 |j 2005 |e 3 |h 1 |y 4.2005, 3, art1 | ||
| author_variant |
j t jt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:15351661:2005----::reoorlgofofacttentdttsnt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2005 |
| publishDate |
2005 |
| allfields |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553998 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Taieb, Julien verfasserin aut Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law The Berkeley Electronic Press 2005 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2005, 3, art1 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2005 3 1 4.2005, 3, art1 |
| spelling |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553998 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Taieb, Julien verfasserin aut Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law The Berkeley Electronic Press 2005 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2005, 3, art1 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2005 3 1 4.2005, 3, art1 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553998 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Taieb, Julien verfasserin aut Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law The Berkeley Electronic Press 2005 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2005, 3, art1 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2005 3 1 4.2005, 3, art1 |
| allfieldsGer |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553998 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Taieb, Julien verfasserin aut Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law The Berkeley Electronic Press 2005 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2005, 3, art1 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2005 3 1 4.2005, 3, art1 |
| allfieldsSound |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553998 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Taieb, Julien verfasserin aut Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law The Berkeley Electronic Press 2005 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law In Global jurist / Advances Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 4.2005, 3, art1 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 1535-1661 nnns volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 4 2005 3 1 4.2005, 3, art1 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Global jurist / Advances 4.2005, 3, art1 volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 |
| sourceStr |
In Global jurist / Advances 4.2005, 3, art1 volume:4 year:2005 number:3 pages:1 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Global jurist / Advances |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Taieb, Julien @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2005-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ219537267 |
| id |
NLEJ219553998 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ219553998</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707085659.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2005 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ219553998</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Taieb, Julien</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">The Berkeley Electronic Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">French Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">American Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Religious Freedom</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Secularism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Constitutional Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Global jurist / Advances</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">4.2005, 3, art1</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ219537267</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2115502-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1535-1661</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2005</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-BEP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2005</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">1</subfield><subfield code="y">4.2005, 3, art1</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals |
| author |
Taieb, Julien |
| spellingShingle |
Taieb, Julien misc French Law misc American Law misc Religious Freedom misc Secularism misc Comparative Law misc Constitutional Law Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law |
| authorStr |
Taieb, Julien |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ219537267 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1535-1661 |
| topic_title |
Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law French Law American Law Religious Freedom Secularism Comparative Law Constitutional Law |
| publisher |
The Berkeley Electronic Press |
| publisherStr |
The Berkeley Electronic Press |
| topic |
misc French Law misc American Law misc Religious Freedom misc Secularism misc Comparative Law misc Constitutional Law |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc French Law misc American Law misc Religious Freedom misc Secularism misc Comparative Law misc Constitutional Law |
| topic_browse |
misc French Law misc American Law misc Religious Freedom misc Secularism misc Comparative Law misc Constitutional Law |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Global jurist / Advances |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ219537267 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Global jurist / Advances |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ219537267 (DE-600)2115502-1 |
| title |
Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ219553998 |
| title_full |
Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law |
| author_sort |
Taieb, Julien |
| journal |
Global jurist / Advances |
| journalStr |
Global jurist / Advances |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2005 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
1 |
| author_browse |
Taieb, Julien |
| container_volume |
4 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| countryofpublication_str_mv |
XD-US |
| author-letter |
Taieb, Julien |
| title_sort |
freedom of religion: from france to the united states, a national conflict of law |
| title_auth |
Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law |
| abstract |
This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. |
| abstractGer |
This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law |
| url |
http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ219537267 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T05:28:49.343Z |
| _version_ |
1803806288739565568 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ219553998</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707085659.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2005 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ219553998</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Taieb, Julien</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Freedom of Religion: from France to the United States, a National Conflict of Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">The Berkeley Electronic Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This article aims at providing an overview of a common evolution of religious freedom that has occurred in France and in the United States during the last fifteen years. Indeed both systems have chosen to restrict religious freedom by switching from a case by case approach to an a priori approach. More precisely whenever the law of the State has entered into conflict with the law of a religious community, courts and legislators have refused to weigh the various interests at stake. This choice may unfortunately lead to domination by the mainstream religion. More symbolically, it means that society does not wish to "listen" to what the religionists have to say, that society is not willing to "see" the faith requirements of each one of its citizens but only of the majority of them. The prior legal system dealing with religious liberty issues appeared more respectful of religious freedom in various respects. A "law endowed with sight" is the guarantee that neither the State nor the religionists will be disfavored by the judges. It is the guarantee that no solutions shall be taken prior to the examination of the factual circumstances of the case. There are infinite ways to live one's religious faith and consequently it would be a mistake to refuse to acknowledge all the possible nuances developed by the consciences of individuals. This reflection on the evolution of freedom of religion constitutes in essence an epistemological analysis. The French and American legal systems have today substantially different features, especially as to the role played by judges and statutes in the administration of justice. These differences between the two systems help us to put in perspective their evolutions with regard to religious freedom. More precisely the two systems seem to have adopted crossed dynamics. The French system adopted a statute in 2004 that deprived the judge of the right to proceed to a factual examination in each case. On the opposite side the American system abandoned its legal tradition since the Smith case (1990), clearly establishing that the Court would no longer balance the interests of religious groups against the interests of the society. The future evolution of each legal system will, in any case, have to take into account the cultural dimensions of the law.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">French Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">American Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Religious Freedom</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Secularism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Comparative Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Constitutional Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Global jurist / Advances</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">4.2005, 3, art1</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ219537267</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2115502-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1535-1661</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2005</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol4/iss3/art1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-BEP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2005</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">1</subfield><subfield code="y">4.2005, 3, art1</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4002237 |