{"title":"在斯特拉斯堡，牧师们到底输了吗?","authors":"Wojciech Brzozowski","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwac001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the late 2021, the European Court of Human Rights rejected as inadmissible the application lodged by a person affiliated with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Court argued that ‘Pastafarianism’, due to its purely satirical character, cannot be considered to be a religion or belief within the sense of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This ruling appears to be convincingly justified. However, some aspects of the reasoning offered in the body of the decision might raise concerns as to the Court’s willingness to adhere to its earlier standards, since the conclusion was reached at the price of overstretching the well-established view on the incompatibility of the state’s duty of neutrality with any power to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which they are expressed.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did Pastafarians Lose in Strasbourg, After All?\",\"authors\":\"Wojciech Brzozowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwac001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the late 2021, the European Court of Human Rights rejected as inadmissible the application lodged by a person affiliated with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Court argued that ‘Pastafarianism’, due to its purely satirical character, cannot be considered to be a religion or belief within the sense of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This ruling appears to be convincingly justified. However, some aspects of the reasoning offered in the body of the decision might raise concerns as to the Court’s willingness to adhere to its earlier standards, since the conclusion was reached at the price of overstretching the well-established view on the incompatibility of the state’s duty of neutrality with any power to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which they are expressed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwac001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwac001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
In the late 2021, the European Court of Human Rights rejected as inadmissible the application lodged by a person affiliated with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Court argued that ‘Pastafarianism’, due to its purely satirical character, cannot be considered to be a religion or belief within the sense of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This ruling appears to be convincingly justified. However, some aspects of the reasoning offered in the body of the decision might raise concerns as to the Court’s willingness to adhere to its earlier standards, since the conclusion was reached at the price of overstretching the well-established view on the incompatibility of the state’s duty of neutrality with any power to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which they are expressed.
期刊介绍：
Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.
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
