Crosses and Culture: State-Sponsored Religious Displays in the US and Europe

Authors

Mark L. Movsesian, St. John's University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Oxford Journal of Law and Religion

Publication Date

2012

Volume

1

First Page

338

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rws006

Abstract

This article compares the recent jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights on the question of state-sponsored religious displays. Both tribunals insist that states have a duty of religious “neutrality,” but each defines that term differently. For the Supreme Court, neutrality means that government may not proselytize, even indirectly, or appear to favor a particular church; neutrality may even mean that government must not endorse religion generally. For the ECtHR, by contrast, neutrality means only that government must avoid active religious indoctrination; the ECtHR allows government to give “preponderant visibility” to the symbols of traditionally dominant churches. The different conceptions of neutrality reflect institutional and cultural realities. In particular, the differences reflect what sociologists of religion describe as the “American” and “European” religious models.

Comments

This is a pre-publication version. The published version is available at Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Volume 1, Issue 2, October 2012, Pages 338–362.