Méadhbh McIvor
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- May 2021
- ISBN:
- 9780691193632
- eISBN:
- 9780691211619
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691193632.003.0004
- Subject:
- Sociology, Sociology of Religion
This chapter focuses on one aspect of Britain's contemporary legal culture: the rise of rights-based discourse. It argues that by framing their cases as conflicts of rights, the Christian Legal ...
More
This chapter focuses on one aspect of Britain's contemporary legal culture: the rise of rights-based discourse. It argues that by framing their cases as conflicts of rights, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) aims to undermine the universalism of human rights language. By constructing themselves as a marginalised counterpublic whose rights are frequently 'trumped', they hope to convince their fellow Britons that a society built upon the logic of competing rights cannot hope to deliver human flourishing. By contrast, only a society based on the foundational Truths of the Bible can achieve the utopian vision sought after by rights proponents. The chapter concludes that although the CLC has been successful in highlighting the inconsistency of human rights idealism, the use of rights-based claims to undermine a rights-based legal framework leaves them open to the charge that they are reinforcing the very system they hope to challenge.Less
This chapter focuses on one aspect of Britain's contemporary legal culture: the rise of rights-based discourse. It argues that by framing their cases as conflicts of rights, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) aims to undermine the universalism of human rights language. By constructing themselves as a marginalised counterpublic whose rights are frequently 'trumped', they hope to convince their fellow Britons that a society built upon the logic of competing rights cannot hope to deliver human flourishing. By contrast, only a society based on the foundational Truths of the Bible can achieve the utopian vision sought after by rights proponents. The chapter concludes that although the CLC has been successful in highlighting the inconsistency of human rights idealism, the use of rights-based claims to undermine a rights-based legal framework leaves them open to the charge that they are reinforcing the very system they hope to challenge.
Méadhbh McIvor
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- May 2021
- ISBN:
- 9780691193632
- eISBN:
- 9780691211619
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691193632.003.0003
- Subject:
- Sociology, Sociology of Religion
This chapter discusses two of the Christian Legal Centre's (CLC) cases to examine the ways in which theological categories are recognised (or misrecognised) in law. These cases involved a nurse and a ...
More
This chapter discusses two of the Christian Legal Centre's (CLC) cases to examine the ways in which theological categories are recognised (or misrecognised) in law. These cases involved a nurse and a schoolgirl seeking exemptions from uniform policies that prevented their wearing a cross necklace and a purity ring respectively. For those at the CLC, these cases functioned as proof of the legal system's discrimination against Christians. By virtue of Reformed Christianity's antinomian approach to religious dress — that is, because Protestants do not usually see religious dress as a requirement — the courts felt justified in denying these claimants the 'right' to wear religious jewellery. The CLC interpreted this as anti-Christian bias. For the members of Christ Church, however, the cases were problematic precisely because they seemed to imply that one needed to wear a cross to be a Christian, thereby conflating grace and law and misrepresenting the faith to outsiders. The chapter uses this theo-legal dispute to explore the ways in which English law constructs material religion as optional and inessential, such that cases aiming to protect the right to wear religious jewellery end up confirming the ease with which restrictions can be placed on it.Less
This chapter discusses two of the Christian Legal Centre's (CLC) cases to examine the ways in which theological categories are recognised (or misrecognised) in law. These cases involved a nurse and a schoolgirl seeking exemptions from uniform policies that prevented their wearing a cross necklace and a purity ring respectively. For those at the CLC, these cases functioned as proof of the legal system's discrimination against Christians. By virtue of Reformed Christianity's antinomian approach to religious dress — that is, because Protestants do not usually see religious dress as a requirement — the courts felt justified in denying these claimants the 'right' to wear religious jewellery. The CLC interpreted this as anti-Christian bias. For the members of Christ Church, however, the cases were problematic precisely because they seemed to imply that one needed to wear a cross to be a Christian, thereby conflating grace and law and misrepresenting the faith to outsiders. The chapter uses this theo-legal dispute to explore the ways in which English law constructs material religion as optional and inessential, such that cases aiming to protect the right to wear religious jewellery end up confirming the ease with which restrictions can be placed on it.
