Angus McLeay, Elenie Poulos, Louise Richardson‑Self
{"title":"The shifting Christian right discourse on religious freedom in Australia","authors":"Angus McLeay, Elenie Poulos, Louise Richardson‑Self","doi":"10.1017/S1755048322000414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political debates over religious freedom in Australia became prominent in the context of marriage equality, achieved in 2017. The Australian Christian Right (ACR) has driven these debates, but there is little research focusing on its discourse of religious freedom. This article examines a range of texts from ACR actors. Using discourse and theoretical analyses, we identify three key turns in the religious freedom rhetoric of the ACR: “ontological security,” “existential stress,” and “meaning vertigo.” We also explore how mimetic ACR discourse is compared to the United States' Christian Right (USCR). As with the USCR, this research demonstrates how the ACR—suffering meaning vertigo and aiming to re-secure its previously taken-for-granted worldview—has successfully reframed the discourse of religious freedom by positioning itself as a besieged minority.","PeriodicalId":45674,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Religion","volume":"305 1","pages":"197 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048322000414","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract Political debates over religious freedom in Australia became prominent in the context of marriage equality, achieved in 2017. The Australian Christian Right (ACR) has driven these debates, but there is little research focusing on its discourse of religious freedom. This article examines a range of texts from ACR actors. Using discourse and theoretical analyses, we identify three key turns in the religious freedom rhetoric of the ACR: “ontological security,” “existential stress,” and “meaning vertigo.” We also explore how mimetic ACR discourse is compared to the United States' Christian Right (USCR). As with the USCR, this research demonstrates how the ACR—suffering meaning vertigo and aiming to re-secure its previously taken-for-granted worldview—has successfully reframed the discourse of religious freedom by positioning itself as a besieged minority.
期刊介绍：
Politics and Religion is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed research on the multifaceted relationship between religion and politics around the world. The scope of published work is intentionally broad and we invite innovative work from all methodological approaches in the major subfields of political science, including international relations, American politics, comparative politics, and political theory, that seeks to improve our understanding of religion’s role in some aspect of world politics. The Editors invite normative and empirical investigations of the public representation of religion, the religious and political institutions that shape religious presence in the public square, and the role of religion in shaping citizenship, broadly considered, as well as pieces that attempt to advance our methodological tools for examining religious influence in political life.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
