Using Law to Limit Religious Freedom: The Case of New Religious Movements in France
France, with its approach to managing religion known as laïcité, has been almost unique among Western nations in its approach to religious freedom for minority religious groups and movements. In recent decades it has passed widely criticized laws in efforts to implement a program of social control o...
| Auteurs: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| 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: |
MDPI
2023
|
| Dans: |
Religions
Année: 2023, Volume: 14, Numéro: 7 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
religious regulation
B mental manipulation B secte B Laïcité B minority religions and NRMs B Social Control B Religious Freedom B Cult B sociology of law B France B anti-cult legislation |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | France, with its approach to managing religion known as laïcité, has been almost unique among Western nations in its approach to religious freedom for minority religious groups and movements. In recent decades it has passed widely criticized laws in efforts to implement a program of social control over such groups, including both new religious movements (NRMs) as well as older religious groups that have functioned in France for many decades. Examining why and how this has happened helps reveal how religious freedom can be curtailed in a modern Western society using the legislative process and the law. We apply theories from the sociology of law offered by Donald Black and by William Chambliss, as well as other relevant ideas, to understand how the situation developed in France. Black’s concepts of status and intimacy are particularly useful, as is Chambliss’ dialectic approach to law, which emphasizes human volition in lawmaking. Chambliss focuses on how societies develop resolutions to resolve dilemmas as they attempt to resolve conflicts that arise from contradictions in how society functions. The role of courts in such situations will also be addressed. We conclude that the liberalistic and humanitarian national motto (“liberté, égalité, fraternité”) of the French Republic does not necessarily lead to the non-discrimination and non-persecution of new religious movements and other nontraditional religious groups. We also conclude that the resolution obtained with the About–Picard law was, as predicted by Chambliss, not a final one, and that dilemmas continue to exist about how to address concerns about religious groups in French society. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel14070887 |