Deliberating across Difference: Religious Accommodation and Deliberative Democracy
This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
[2020]
|
| In: |
Journal of law, religion and state
Year: 2020, Volume: 8, Issue: 1, Pages: 34-61 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Canada
/ Deliberative democracy
/ Religious pluralism
/ Publicity
/ Discussion
|
| RelBib Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy KBQ North America ZC Politics in general |
| Further subjects: | B
Multiculturalism
B religious accommodation B religious arbitration B Deliberative Democracy |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Publisher) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2212-4810 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of law, religion and state
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/22124810-00801003 |
