Religious School Education in Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Voting

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Secular Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1163/25892525-bja10048
Paula Montero
{"title":"Religious School Education in Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Voting","authors":"Paula Montero","doi":"10.1163/25892525-bja10048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the arguments made by the eleven Justices of the Supreme Federal Court who, in 2017, decided on the constitutionality of offering confessional education in public schools. We will explore how long-term disputed ethical and legal values are rearticulated in these votes concerning the notion of belief, almost 40 years after defining Religious Education as a fundamental human right by the Constitution. It is not a matter of harking back to the topic of secularism, as a social process or as a legal norm or political doctrine. The discursive analysis of the ministers’ votes formulations aims, on the contrary, to unveil the different religious constructions implied in their uses of the terms religion and rights and to understand how they operate when putting forward an idea of citizenship and/or the nation. The aim is to clarify, from this systematic examination of the votes, the configuration of common legal sense when issuing value judgments about religion and its protection. Therefore, our primary focus will be to circumscribe what counts as religion in these legal narratives.","PeriodicalId":29677,"journal":{"name":"Secular Studies","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Secular Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25892525-bja10048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the arguments made by the eleven Justices of the Supreme Federal Court who, in 2017, decided on the constitutionality of offering confessional education in public schools. We will explore how long-term disputed ethical and legal values are rearticulated in these votes concerning the notion of belief, almost 40 years after defining Religious Education as a fundamental human right by the Constitution. It is not a matter of harking back to the topic of secularism, as a social process or as a legal norm or political doctrine. The discursive analysis of the ministers’ votes formulations aims, on the contrary, to unveil the different religious constructions implied in their uses of the terms religion and rights and to understand how they operate when putting forward an idea of citizenship and/or the nation. The aim is to clarify, from this systematic examination of the votes, the configuration of common legal sense when issuing value judgments about religion and its protection. Therefore, our primary focus will be to circumscribe what counts as religion in these legal narratives.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宗教学校教育在巴西最高联邦法院投票中的作用
摘要本文考察了最高联邦法院11位大法官在2017年就公立学校提供忏悔教育的合宪性做出的裁决。在宪法将宗教教育定义为一项基本人权近40年后,我们将探讨长期存在争议的伦理和法律价值观是如何在这些关于信仰概念的投票中重新表达出来的。这不是回到世俗主义的话题,作为一种社会进程或法律规范或政治学说。相反,对牧师投票表述的话语分析旨在揭示他们使用“宗教”和“权利”这两个术语所隐含的不同宗教结构,并理解它们在提出公民身份和/或国家观念时是如何运作的。其目的是通过对选票的系统考察,阐明在对宗教及其保护作出价值判断时,法律常识的构成。因此,我们的主要焦点将是在这些法律叙述中界定什么是宗教。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary on Urban Secularism by Julia Martínez-Ariño Revisiting Urban Secularism Preface to Special Section about Julia Martínez-Ariño’s Urban Secularism Why a Lack of Secularism Contributes to Underdevelopment in Many Muslim Countries Urban Secularism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1