| Abstract
|
:
|
In recent years, due to globalization processes, religion emerged as a primary source of inter-communal tensions worldwide. Academic thinking tackling with possibilities of diffusing such tensions has been dominated by the liberal view, which offers the legal separation of religious and state affairs as the preferred method for avoiding and preventing religious-based conflicts. However, ample examples worldwide suggest that due to different social, historical, demographical and cultural processes this approach is inapplicable for many states. This dissertation offers an alternative to the liberal approach, to assist such states in their quest for multicultural coexistence. The proposed approach utilizes legal means in diffusing religious-based tensions, due to the special capacities of the law to: (i) guide and reform human behavior; (ii) advance compromises and concessions; (iii) establish settlements; and (iv) generate conformity through deterrence, education, punishment, retribution, etc. All these traits and tools are critical to pacify the highly divisive realities of multicultural democracies struggling with religious-based tensions. Accordingly, when states adopt legal mechanisms to diffuse religious-based divisiveness, they must follow a threefold approach: (a) the legal mechanisms must provide constitutional protection to traditional fundamental rights, primarily freedom of religion and equality rights; (b) they must prescribe a balancing test to reconcile situations where religious freedom conflicts with core values and fundamental rights of the wider society; and (c) they must include implementing legislation that accommodates as much as possible the religious diversity of the society concerned. This approach is developed through a comparative empirical study of six states. The legal systems of Spain, Canada and England, which generally contain their religious-based tensions, are compared with the systems of Turkey, India and Israel, which are characterized by a conflict-driven social reality on religious issues. This comparison identifies the legal arrangements that contribute to diffusing religious based tensions and those that exacerbate them, which then provide the underpinnings to the elements of the proposed approach.
|