传染、集会和宪法:1918年和2020年大流行中的互惠和宗教自由

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Oxford Journal of Law and Religion Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1093/ojlr/rwac004
Brady Earley
{"title":"传染、集会和宪法:1918年和2020年大流行中的互惠和宗教自由","authors":"Brady Earley","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwac004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article undertakes a comparison of legal restrictions on religious gatherings in the USA during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. After contextualizing each pandemic within its legal, political, and social culture, the analysis distills prevailing principles between the two health crises and their approach to religious liberty. Evidence suggests that courts in both periods relied on proportionality and equality to resolve disputes between government bans on worship services and conscientious objectors. However, the experience of multiple local governments in 1918 and other nations in 2020 models a better way. Instead of using proportionality or equality, these state officials relied on reciprocity between government and religious groups. Their approach tended to produce fewer bans, lower case counts, and greater trust during the pandemic and offers a useful precedent for current US lawmakers managing the religious freedom concerns of COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"10 1","pages":"359 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contagions, Congregations, and Constitutional Law: Reciprocity and Religious Freedom in the 1918 and 2020 Pandemics\",\"authors\":\"Brady Earley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwac004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article undertakes a comparison of legal restrictions on religious gatherings in the USA during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. After contextualizing each pandemic within its legal, political, and social culture, the analysis distills prevailing principles between the two health crises and their approach to religious liberty. Evidence suggests that courts in both periods relied on proportionality and equality to resolve disputes between government bans on worship services and conscientious objectors. However, the experience of multiple local governments in 1918 and other nations in 2020 models a better way. Instead of using proportionality or equality, these state officials relied on reciprocity between government and religious groups. Their approach tended to produce fewer bans, lower case counts, and greater trust during the pandemic and offers a useful precedent for current US lawmakers managing the religious freedom concerns of COVID-19.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"359 - 393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"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/rwac004\",\"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/rwac004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文比较了1918年西班牙流感大流行和新冠肺炎大流行期间美国对宗教集会的法律限制。在将每次大流行置于其法律、政治和社会文化的背景下进行分析后,该分析提炼出两次健康危机之间的普遍原则及其对宗教自由的态度。有证据表明,这两个时期的法院都依据比例原则和平等原则来解决政府禁止做礼拜和出于良心拒服兵役者之间的纠纷。然而,1918年多个地方政府和2020年其他国家的经验为我们提供了更好的模式。这些州政府官员没有使用比例原则或平等原则,而是依靠政府与宗教团体之间的互惠原则。他们的做法往往会在大流行期间产生更少的禁令、更低的病例数和更大的信任,并为现任美国立法者管理COVID-19的宗教自由担忧提供了有益的先例。
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
Contagions, Congregations, and Constitutional Law: Reciprocity and Religious Freedom in the 1918 and 2020 Pandemics
Abstract This article undertakes a comparison of legal restrictions on religious gatherings in the USA during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. After contextualizing each pandemic within its legal, political, and social culture, the analysis distills prevailing principles between the two health crises and their approach to religious liberty. Evidence suggests that courts in both periods relied on proportionality and equality to resolve disputes between government bans on worship services and conscientious objectors. However, the experience of multiple local governments in 1918 and other nations in 2020 models a better way. Instead of using proportionality or equality, these state officials relied on reciprocity between government and religious groups. Their approach tended to produce fewer bans, lower case counts, and greater trust during the pandemic and offers a useful precedent for current US lawmakers managing the religious freedom concerns of COVID-19.
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
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.
期刊最新文献
From Transmitting Authority to Quiet Adaptation: Social Change and the Translation of Islamic Knowledge in Norway Playing with the Canon: Ḥanafī Legal Riddles of the Mamluk Period Fragmentation in the European and Inter-American Human Rights Courts Regarding the Scope of Religious Autonomy: An Analysis of the Use of Sources and Methodologies New Threats to Sacred Sites and Religious Property A Tale of Two Ṭarīqas: The Iraqi and Khurasani Shāfiʿī Communities in the Fourth/Tenth and Fifth/Eleventh Centuries
×
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