TY - JOUR
T1 - State Legitimacy and Religious Accommodation
T2 - The Case of Sacred Places
AU - Prinz, Janosch
AU - Rossi, Enzo
N1 - Funding Information:
This paper was presented at the Conference on Sacred Places at Bar-Ilan University. We are grateful for the insightful comments of the audience. Special thanks go to Karen Barkey, Jocelyn Cesari, Ruth Gavison, Nahshon Perez, Gideon Sapir, Danny Statman, and Jonathan Seglow. Enzo Rossi's research for this essay was supported by the Dutch National Science Organisation's (NWO) Vidi project "Legitimacy Beyond Consent" (grant n. 016.164.351). Janosch Prinz would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for supporting his research with an Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2016-227).
Publisher Copyright:
© Janosch Prinz and Enzo Rossi, 2020.
PY - 2021/3/2
Y1 - 2021/3/2
N2 - In this paper, we put forward a realist account of the problem of accommodation of conflicting claims over sacred places. Our argument takes its cue from the empirical finding that modern, Western-style states necessarily mould religion into shapes that are compatible with state rule. At least in the context of modern states, there is no pre-political morality of religious freedom that states ought to follow when adjudicating claims over sacred spaces. Liberal normative theory on religious accommodation which starts from the assumption of a pre-political morality of religious freedom is therefore of limited value. As an alternative, we suggest that the question of contested sacred places should be settled with reference to the purposes of the state, at least as long as one is committed to the existence of modern states. If one finds the treatment of religion by the state unsatisfactory, our argument provides a pro tanto reason for seeking alternative forms of political organization.
AB - In this paper, we put forward a realist account of the problem of accommodation of conflicting claims over sacred places. Our argument takes its cue from the empirical finding that modern, Western-style states necessarily mould religion into shapes that are compatible with state rule. At least in the context of modern states, there is no pre-political morality of religious freedom that states ought to follow when adjudicating claims over sacred spaces. Liberal normative theory on religious accommodation which starts from the assumption of a pre-political morality of religious freedom is therefore of limited value. As an alternative, we suggest that the question of contested sacred places should be settled with reference to the purposes of the state, at least as long as one is committed to the existence of modern states. If one finds the treatment of religion by the state unsatisfactory, our argument provides a pro tanto reason for seeking alternative forms of political organization.
U2 - 10.1163/22124810-2020003
DO - 10.1163/22124810-2020003
M3 - Article
SN - 2212-6465
VL - 9
SP - 3
EP - 22
JO - Journal of Law, Religion and State
JF - Journal of Law, Religion and State
IS - 1
ER -