• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Theorizing religion, constitutionalizing religion: Taylor, Connolly, Habermas, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
【24h】

Theorizing religion, constitutionalizing religion: Taylor, Connolly, Habermas, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

机译：宗教理论化，宗教宪法化：泰勒，康诺利，哈贝马斯和美国最高法院。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

My dissertation asked whether the U.S. Constitution's singular treatment of religion in the First Amendment remains justifiable given post-World War II changes in how Americans talk about rights, organize their politics, and negotiate pluralistic private and public interactions. I proposed a re-interpretation of the Religion Clauses responsive to three exigencies: constitutional principles and established jurisprudence; a legacy of inequality based on legal instantiations of racial, gendered, sexual, and other taxonomies of difference; and the imperatives of a normative theory of justice. My analysis detected three principal modes of constitutionalizing religion: religion/secular dichotomy, universal ethical capacity, and identity politics. Analyzing over fifty Supreme Court cases, I traced these shifts in reasoning and narrative resonance by attending to concurring, dissenting, and controlling opinions and by integrating historical literature illuminating the everyday articulations of religious meaning and practice overflowing legal categories. I framed this reconstruction and critique of constitutional arguments through the three contrasting theorizations of religion of Charles Taylor, William Connolly, and Jurgen Habermas. From this integration of empirical and interpretative methodologies, law and theory, my dissertation concluded that a pluralizing identity politics has made strict religion-state separation problematic: Drawing comparative equivalencies between religion and other identities is unavoidable given post-Sixties changes in political claims making in which a civil rights logic demanding equal treatment irrespective of difference confronts a politics of recognition logic demanding respect for identity uniqueness without the price of coerced sameness. Nonetheless, destabilizing religion/secular separation necessitates new constitutional and theoretical articulations of the limits to a right of now pluralized, participant-defined ethical autonomy. From the standpoint of an intersubjective justice pragmatically transcending unilateral perspectives, identity claims are not automatic constitutional trumps. I urge balancing First Amendment ethical freedom with Fourteenth Amendment equality guarantees, recognizing both principles as crossing and reworking public/private boundaries. This pairing interweaves insights from Taylor on the entangled depth of ethical life, Connolly on a proliferating relational identity politics critically resistant to rigidification, and Habermas on locating these twinned commitments to ethical freedom and pluralization within a dialogical interpretative framework of constitutionalizing not religion but justice.
机译：我的论文问到，鉴于第二次世界大战后美国人在谈论权利，组织政治以及协商多元化的私人和公共互动方式方面发生了变化，美国宪法在《第一修正案》中对宗教的单一处理是否仍然合理。我提出了对宗教条款的重新解释，以应对三种紧急情况：宪法原则和既定的法理学；基于种族，性别，性别和其他差异分类法的法律实例的不平等遗产；以及规范性正义理论的必要性。我的分析发现了三种将宗教宪法化的主要模式：宗教/世俗二分法，普遍伦理能力和身份政治。通过分析同意，不同意和控制的观点，并结合历史文献阐明了宗教意义和实践的日常表述，我分析了超过50个最高法院的案件，从而追溯了推理和叙事共鸣的这些变化。我通过查尔斯·泰勒（Charles Taylor），威廉·康诺利（William Connolly）和尤尔根·哈贝马斯（Jurgen Habermas）的三种对比性宗教理论，对宪法论点进行了重构和批判。从经验和解释方法，法律和理论的这种整合中，我的论文得出结论，多元化的身份政治使严格的宗教国家分离成为问题：鉴于六十年代后政治主张的变化，不可避免地要在宗教和其他身份之间建立比较等价关系。要求不分差异地给予平等对待的民权逻辑面临着承认逻辑的政治，这种逻辑要求尊重身份唯一性而又不以强迫相同为代价。但是，破坏宗教/世俗分离的稳定需要新的宪法和理论阐明，以限制现在由参与者定义的多元化的民族自治权的权利。从主体间的司法务实地超越单方面的观点来看，身份主张不是自动的宪法王牌。我敦促平衡第一修正案的道德自由与第十四修正案的平等保障，同时承认这两个原则都是跨越和重塑公共/私人边界。这种配对将泰勒（Taylor）对纠缠的伦理生活的深度，康诺利（Connolly）对激进的抵抗僵化的批判性抵抗的洞见交织在一起，哈贝马斯（Habermas）将这些对道德自由和多元性的双重承诺定位在一个将宗教而非正义宪法化的对话解释框架内。

著录项

  • 作者

    Miller, Laura S.;

  • 作者单位

    New School University.;

  • 授予单位 New School University.;
  • 学科 Law.;Political Science General.;Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 612 p.
  • 总页数 612
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号