论文部分内容阅读
“宗教”一词的法律意涵与社会学意涵并不重合。美国联邦最高法院对宪法中“宗教”概念的认知之扩展契合美国社会宗教多元化的进程,但同时亦带来一系列问题:超越“宗教”一词的语义极限,增加了与禁止国教条款相抵触的可能性;而且界定“宗教”本身便可能违反禁止确立国教条款。与他国宪法解释实践对比可知,美国的经验虽不具有普适性,但各国多试图抽象地把握宪法上的“宗教”概念之结构性特征,而非对各教派进行简单罗列。
The meaning of the word “religion” does not coincide with the meaning of sociology. The expansion of the United States Supreme Court’s cognition of the concept of “religion” in the Constitution fits the process of religious pluralism in the American society but at the same time it also brings about a series of problems: it goes beyond the semantic limit of “religion” and adds And the possibility of prohibiting the provisions of the state religion; and defining “religion” itself may violate the prohibition of the establishment of the state religion clause. Comparing with the practice of constitutional interpretation in other countries, we can see that although the experience of the United States is not universally applicable, all over the world are trying to abstractly grasp the structural features of the constitutional concept of “religion” instead of simply listing the sects.