良心、同意和派系的多样性:美国殖民地立宪主义的解体和自由行使

Q4 Social Sciences Perspectives on Political Science Pub Date : 2022-02-18 DOI:10.1080/10457097.2022.2042161
Matthew S. Brogdon
{"title":"良心、同意和派系的多样性:美国殖民地立宪主义的解体和自由行使","authors":"Matthew S. Brogdon","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2042161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Taking seriously Tocqueville’s admonition that colonial experience is the proper “point of departure” for understanding the American regime and its constitution, this essay examines the development of free exercise protections and disestablishment of religion in the foundational laws of the American colonies. Like other studies of church-state relations, this examination largely bears out Madison’s pithy analysis in The Federalist. “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects.” Growing religious diversity was a harbinger of religious liberty in early American constitutionalism. Yet the extension of free exercise protections and the curtailment of church establishments also depended on patterns of thought endemic to the theology of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Americans, shared principles that predated the proliferation of enlightenment liberalism in America. This narrative cautions against grounding religious liberty entirely in modern liberalism; colonial Americans did not adopt religious liberty as a result of secularization, but to protect their communities of faith from political threats. A conception of church-state relations that exudes hostility to faith is not likely to be durable. A robust religious liberty must thus be grounded in, or at minimum consonant with, the convictions the devoutly religious.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"53 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conscience, Consent, and a Multiplicity of Factions: Disestablishment and Free Exercise in Colonial American Constitutionalism\",\"authors\":\"Matthew S. Brogdon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10457097.2022.2042161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Taking seriously Tocqueville’s admonition that colonial experience is the proper “point of departure” for understanding the American regime and its constitution, this essay examines the development of free exercise protections and disestablishment of religion in the foundational laws of the American colonies. Like other studies of church-state relations, this examination largely bears out Madison’s pithy analysis in The Federalist. “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects.” Growing religious diversity was a harbinger of religious liberty in early American constitutionalism. Yet the extension of free exercise protections and the curtailment of church establishments also depended on patterns of thought endemic to the theology of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Americans, shared principles that predated the proliferation of enlightenment liberalism in America. This narrative cautions against grounding religious liberty entirely in modern liberalism; colonial Americans did not adopt religious liberty as a result of secularization, but to protect their communities of faith from political threats. A conception of church-state relations that exudes hostility to faith is not likely to be durable. A robust religious liberty must thus be grounded in, or at minimum consonant with, the convictions the devoutly religious.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Political Science\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"53 - 66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2042161\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2042161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

托克维尔曾告诫说,殖民经验是理解美国政权及其宪法的恰当“出发点”,本文认真地审视了美国殖民地基本法律中保护自由行使和废除宗教的发展。像其他关于政教关系的研究一样,这一研究在很大程度上证实了麦迪逊在《联邦党人文集》中的精辟分析。“在一个自由的政府中,公民权利的保障必须与宗教权利的保障一样。前者在于利益的多样性,后者在于教派的多样性。这两种情况下的安全程度将取决于利益集团和教派的数量。”日益增长的宗教多样性是早期美国宪政中宗教自由的先兆。然而,对自由行使保护的扩大和对教会机构的限制也依赖于17世纪和18世纪美国神学特有的思想模式,这些共同的原则早于启蒙自由主义在美国的扩散。这种叙述告诫人们不要把宗教自由完全建立在现代自由主义的基础上;殖民时期的美国人信奉宗教自由并不是世俗化的结果,而是为了保护他们的信仰群体免受政治威胁。一种对信仰充满敌意的政教关系是不可能持久的。因此,强有力的宗教自由必须建立在虔诚的宗教信仰的基础上,或者至少与之一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Conscience, Consent, and a Multiplicity of Factions: Disestablishment and Free Exercise in Colonial American Constitutionalism
Abstract Taking seriously Tocqueville’s admonition that colonial experience is the proper “point of departure” for understanding the American regime and its constitution, this essay examines the development of free exercise protections and disestablishment of religion in the foundational laws of the American colonies. Like other studies of church-state relations, this examination largely bears out Madison’s pithy analysis in The Federalist. “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects.” Growing religious diversity was a harbinger of religious liberty in early American constitutionalism. Yet the extension of free exercise protections and the curtailment of church establishments also depended on patterns of thought endemic to the theology of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Americans, shared principles that predated the proliferation of enlightenment liberalism in America. This narrative cautions against grounding religious liberty entirely in modern liberalism; colonial Americans did not adopt religious liberty as a result of secularization, but to protect their communities of faith from political threats. A conception of church-state relations that exudes hostility to faith is not likely to be durable. A robust religious liberty must thus be grounded in, or at minimum consonant with, the convictions the devoutly religious.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives on Political Science
Perspectives on Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Whether discussing Montaigne"s case for tolerance or Nietzsche"s political critique of modern science, Perspectives on Political Science links contemporary politics and culture to the enduring questions posed by great thinkers from antiquity to the present. Ideas are the lifeblood of the journal, which comprises articles, symposia, and book reviews. Recent articles address the writings of Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Plutarch; the movies No Country for Old Men and 3:10 to Yuma; and the role of humility in modern political thought.
期刊最新文献
Paul & Empire Criticism: Why and How? Paul & Empire Criticism: Why and How? by Najeeb T. Haddad, Cascade Books, Publication Date: 2023 Conversation as Political Education Defending Socrates: Political Philosophy Before the Tribunal of Science Defending Socrates: Political Philosophy Before the Tribunal of Science , by Alex Priou, Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 184 pp., ISBN 978-0-88146-914-1, Publication Date: 2023 The Politics of Suicide: Miasma and Katharmos in Plato’s Political Thought “Worse than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism,” by Erwin Chemerinsky
×
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