Abstract:
Exemptions from laws of general application for members of religious
groups are controversial. One reason for this is an exemption seems to
elevate those to whom it is granted above the ordinary law, and to make
them a law unto themselves. This article examines the theoretical
foundation for such claims: the conflict between religious exemptions
and the ideal of the Rule of Law, influential accounts of which
emphasize the requirement of legal generality. It inquires into the
different meanings of legal generality and explains why religious
exemptions are problematic from a Rule of Law perspective. It
scrutinizes the usual defences of religious exemptions and points out
their weaknesses. Nevertheless, it argues that because religious
freedom, which exemptions help secure, and the Rule of Law are based on
the same philosophical foundation, the dignity of the person as an
autonomous moral agent, the relationship between religious exemptions
and the Rule of Law is not purely antagonistic. The tension which the
critics of exemptions expose is real, but some religious exemptions
ought to be granted. The article outlines a framework for deciding when
religious exemptions should be granted and when denied, and concludes
with some observations on the institutions that can be entrusted with
deciding whether to grant an exemption.
source
paper: here
No comments:
Post a Comment