No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Intimate Rivals: The Freedom of Religious Nationalism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 August 2021
Abstract
In this article, I argue that religious nationalism poses a unique challenge to the liberal theory of religious freedom. In arguing this, the article first develops and defines an ideal type of religious nationalism through an analysis of Hindu-nationalist and religious Zionist thought. I show that religious nationalism in states like India and Israel have the unique status of intimate rivals. They are intimate since they are able to successfully present themselves as the carriers of the authentic character of the nation-state and utilize modern political tools. As a result, they are free of much of the unifying pressures of state nationalism. And they are rivals because they promote a vision of society and politics that fundamentally challenges the political identity of the state. The paper then turns to the justifications and rationales of religious freedom—both in seminal cases and in political and legal scholarship—and applies them to religious nationalism. It argues that the status of intimate rivalry should, depending on which justification of religious freedom we adhere to, change the way in which we morally and legally understand religious nationalism. First, because religious nationalism is intimate—that is, acceptable and mainstream—it should be approached as a part of the culture of the majority. This implies that we should be less concerned about infringements of religious freedom in the case of the adherents and organizations of religious nationalism. Second, the rivalry of religious nationalism is in itself a good reason for the nation-state not to accommodate it.
- Type
- Religious Nationalism and Religious Freedom in Asia
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Asian Journal of Law and Society
Footnotes
The author is deeply grateful to Paul Kahn and Anthony Kronman for countless conversations, insightful feedback, and guidance. This article benefited greatly from comments and suggestions made by Samuel Moyn, David Grewal, Shai Wozner, Jaclyn Neo, Brett Scharffs, Gordon Silverstein, Ofra Bloch, Daniel Maggen, Roman Zinigrad, Sebastian Guidi, Fernando Braccacinni, Natalia Pires, Shlomit Jessel, and participants in workshops at Yale Law School, the National University of Singapore, and Bar-Ilan University.