Deliberating across Difference: Religious Accommodation and Deliberative Democracy
This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
[2020]
|
| Dans: |
Journal of law, religion and state
Année: 2020, Volume: 8, Numéro: 1, Pages: 34-61 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Kanada
/ Démocratie participative
/ Pluralisme religieux
/ Public
/ Discussion
|
| RelBib Classification: | AD Sociologie des religions KBQ Amérique du Nord ZC Politique en général |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Multiculturalism
B religious accommodation B religious arbitration B Deliberative Democracy |
| Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2212-4810 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of law, religion and state
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/22124810-00801003 |