Translation
BibTex RIS Cite

The Legality of Religious Symbols in European Schools

Year 2017, , 793 - 825, 15.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.356795

Abstract

Avrupa Okullarında Dini
Simgelerin Yasallığı
Öz: 1959
yılında Avrupa Konseyine bağlı olarak kurulan Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi,
Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve diğer protokollerle belirlenmiş temel haklar
kapsamında birey, tüzel kişilik ve devletlerarasındaki sorunları çözümleyen
yargı merciidir. Tarihsel olarak Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi: düşünce,
vicdan ve din özgürlüğü kapsamında değerlendirilen çeşitli kararlar almıştır.
Mahkeme söz konusu kararlarında ve özellikle nelerin dini simge kapsamında
değerlendirilebileceğini laik bir bakış açısıyla tanımlamaktadır. Mahkeme, bir
taraftan dini inanca sahip olma hakkını tasdik etmekte, bir taraftan da bu
hakkı kamusal alanda inancı beyan etme hakkı olarak nitelemektedir. Çalışma
dini simgelere, din ve inanç özgürlüğü temelinde yaklaşan kavramsal tarama
modeliyle desenlenmiştir. Bu çalışma özünde alanyazın taraması gibi görülse de
alanyazın tarama yönteminden farklı olarak kavramsal tarama, bir kavramın
farklı yönlerini değişik bilim ve disiplinlerin çalışma alanları kapsamında
incelemektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin, okullarda
bulunan dini simgelere karşı tutumunu belirlemektir. Bu çalışmanın bir sonucu
olarak, son yıllarda Avrupa okullarında giderek artan dini simgeciliğe karşı
yürütülen yerel ve yasakçı yasal girişimlerin doğası ve kapsamı belirlenmiştir.
Bununla birlikte, Avrupa eğitim sistemlerinde dinin yeri ve sosyal sistem
içinde “kilise – devlet ilişkisi” bu çalışmanın başka bir sonucudur. Ayrıca
çalışma, mahkemelerin kararlarını, dini inanç ve geleneklerin kamusal alanda
özgürce beyan edilmesi yönünde şekillendirmeleri gerekliliğini de
belirlemektedir.



Özet: Avrupa’nın yeniden inşa çağından beri dini
sembollerin varlığı, çoğu durumda İslami semboller, modern Avrupa'da, özellikle
kamusal mekânlarda ve özellikle de kamu okullarında giderek daha çok sorun
haline gelmiştir. Bu durum, dini özgürlük kavramının sınırları hakkında büyük
çaplı bir tartışma ve toplumsal ayrımlara yol açmıştır. Aynı zamanda, ülkelerin
anayasa mahkemelerinin belirli kültürlere özgü sembollerin toplum tarafından
özgürce temsil edilebileceğini ilan etmesi, yeni tartışmalara neden olmuştur.
Bu çalışma esas olarak dini sembolizm ve din ve inanç özgürlüğü temelinde
Avrupa hukuk sistemlerinin ve özellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin
(AİHM) görüşüne odaklanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Almanya, İtalya ve Romanya'daki
haçlar ve diğer dini sembollerin okullarda kullanımı konusundaki tartışmalar
yer almaktadır. Dahası, çalışmada yerel mahkemelerin ve AİHM'nin dini
sembollere karşı kararsız tutumu üzerinde durulmuştur.



Avrupa'da tarihsel
olarak şekillenen bir devlet, kamusal ve dini kurumlar vardır. Avrupa
Devletleri, Yunan ve Roma Medeniyetleri üzerinde gelişen yasama, yürütme ve
yargı kurumlarına sahiptir. Ayrıca, ortak din ve kültür kavramıyla birbirlerine
bağlı olan uluslar genel olarak Avrupa kamuoyunu oluşturmaktadır. Avrupa'da,
dini kurumlar geleneksel olarak Roma döneminde şekillenen bir inanç sistemini
benimsemişlerdir. Avrupa'da mezhepsel farklılıklar olmasına rağmen,
Hıristiyanlık genellikle kabul edilmiştir. Ortaçağ'dan bu yana tüm sosyal
alanlarda çok önemli roller oynayan Katolik kilisesi (Vatikan), aydınlatma
çağından bu yana gücünü kaybetmiştir. Aydınlanma ile birlikte, Avrupa
devletleri din ve devlet ilişkilerini birbirinden ayıran ve dinin devlet
organları üzerindeki etkisini azaltan geleneksel laiklik görüşünü benimsemeye
başlamışlardır. Böylece, devletler üzerindeki egemen dini güç zayıflamış ve
kilise toplumda ve kamusal alanda yaşamını sürdürmüştür.



1959'da Avrupa
Konseyi organı olarak kurulan AİHM, çeşitli sözleşmelerin temel haklarının kullanılmasında
bireyler ve tüzel kişiler ile kendi aralarında ve devletlerle olan
uyuşmazlıkların çözülmesi göreviyle yükümlüdür. Mahkemenin yüksek doğası
gereği, iç hukuk kanallarının tükenmesi gereğini isteyen AİHM, sorunları çözmek
için uzlaşmacı bir yaklaşım benimsemiştir. AİHM, öncelikle mahkemenin yüksek
doğası gereği, iç hukuk kanallarının tükenmesi şartına ihtiyaç duymaktadır.
Bununla birlikte AİHM, sorunları çözmek için uzlaşmacı bir yaklaşım
benimsemiştir. AİHM, vatandaşların din, vicdan ve inanç özgürlüğünü özgürce
ifade etmelerini açıkça desteklemekteyken bir taraftan da hükümleri laikliğe
dayanır. Bazı AİHM kararları, kamusal alan tanımını 'tarafsızlık' yerine
'laiklik' ilkesine uygun olarak yeniden şekillendirmektedir.



Avrupa Konseyi
Parlamenterler Meclisinin devlet, din, laiklik ve insan hakları ile ilgili 1804
tarihli kararına göre din, Avrupa tarihinde önemli bir yer olarak kabul
edilmekle birlikte, uygulamada kilise ve devletin ayrılması gereklidir. Bu
karara rağmen, Konsey ve AİHM, dinlerin okullardaki rolü gibi konularda üye
devletlerin farklı görüşlerini tanımayı başaramamıştır. Kamusal karar alma
süreçlerinin AİHM'deki laik tartışmalara dayandığı, laik devletlerin liberal
Avrupa demokrasisinin ilkelerine uygun olduğu, konusunda hâkim bir görüş
bulunmaktadır. Avrupa'daki yerel mahkemelerin kararlarında, insan hakları
giderek daha fazla dikkate alınmaktadır. Bunu yaparken, mahkemeler laikliğin
ideolojik yapısını belirlemekte başarısız olmaktadırlar. Mahkemelerin
kararları, bireylerin dinî görüşlerinin liberal değerlerle bastırılmasına neden
olmaktadır.



Yapılan
tartışmalardan, AİHM'nin ve yerel mahkemelerin ve toplumun, laik bir anlayışa
rağmen, Hıristiyan olmayan dinlere ve kültürlere karşı daha önyargılı oldukları
tespit edilebilir. Ayrıca, ülkelerin kamusal alanlarının çoğunda, İslami dini
sembollerin çoğunlukla sınırlı olduğu dikkate değerdir. Bu kısıtlamaların
başlıca nedeninin İslamofobi ve yabancı düşmanlığı olduğu düşünülmektedir.
Avrupa toplumlarında ve genel olarak batı toplumlarında, dini semboller aidiyet
olarak görülmekte ve giderek artan İslamofobik ve aşırı sağcı eğilimlerle
birlikte, özellikle Hristiyan sembolleri kamusal alanlarda yoğun bir şekilde
kullanılmaktadır. Buna ek olarak, özellikle de İslam'da (başörtüsü gibi)
belirleyici sembollerin kamusal alanda kullanılmasını yasaklamak ve hatta
Fransa ve Avusturya da dâhil olmak üzere çeşitli ülkelerde onları kullananların
cezalandırılması mümkün olabilmektedir. Ayrıca, dini sembollerin okullarda
kullanılması yalnızca kültürel bir değer olarak görülmemelidir. Din sembolleri
bir dinin önemli bir parçasıdır ve toplumda dinin varlığının somut bir
göstergesidir. Okullardaki Hristiyanlığa ait simgeleri bir kültür aracı olarak
algılamaktan ziyade onları bir asimilasyon aracı olarak görmek daha doğru
olacaktır. 

References

  • AlSayyad, Nezar ve Manuel Castells. Muslim Europe or Euro-Islam: politics, culture, and citizenship in the age of globalization. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002.
  • Asad, Talal. Genealogies of religion: Discipline and reasons of power in Christi-anity and Islam. London: JHU Press, 2009.
  • Auslander, Leora. “Bavarian Crucifixes and French Headscarves Religious Signs and the Postmodern European State.” Cultural Dynamics 12, no. 3 (2000): 283-309.
  • Baltacı, Ali. “A Comparison of Syrian Migrant Students in Turkey and Germany: Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Career Expectations.” European Journal of Educational Research 6, no. 1 (2014): 15-27.
  • Baltacı, Ali ve Ali Balcı. “Complexity Leadership: A Theorical Perspective”. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management 6, no. 1 (2017): 30-58.
  • Bretscher, Fabienne. The Swiss Judiciary and International Human Rights Bo-dies: A Closer Look at Muslim Religious Practices in Public Schools. Zu-rich: University of Zurich, 2016.
  • Burki, Shahid Javed. “The Rise of Extremist Islam.” Rising Powers and Global Governance içinde, yazan Shahid Javed Burki, 139-159. Maryland: Palgra-ve Macmillan US, 2017.
  • Calo, Zachary R. “Secularism and the European Court of Human Rights.” Journal of Law and Religion 26, no. 1 (2010): 261-280.
  • Caygill, Howard ve Alan Scott. “The basic law versus the basic norm? The case of the Bavarian crucifix order.” Political Studies 44, no.3 (1996): 505-516.
  • Cesari, Jocelyne. When Islam and democracy meet: Muslims in Europe and in the United States. New York: Springer, 2004.
  • Dorondel, Ștefan. “Orthodoxy, nationalism, and local identities: a Romanian case study.” Ethnologia Balkanica 06 (2002): 117-144.
  • Dunlap, Knight. Religion: Its function in human life: A study of religion from the point of view of psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill publications, 1946.
  • Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in comparative religion. Lincoln: Universiy of Nebraska, 1996.
  • Evans, Malcolm D. “From cartoons to crucifixes: current controversies concer-ning the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression before the European Court of Human Rights.” Journal of Law and Religion 26, no. 1 (2010): 345-370.
  • Gordon, Wendy J. “A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individua-lism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property.” The Yale Law Journal 102, no. 7 (1993): 1533-1609.
  • Horváth, Gizela ve Rozalia Bako. “Religious icons in Romanian schools: text and context.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 8 no. 24 (2009): 189-205.
  • Jaspers, Karl. Felsefeye Giriş, çeviren: Mehmet Akalın, İstanbul: Dergâh yayınla-rı, 1981.
  • Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2011.
  • Jones, Emma. “Fair Access Versus Religious Freedom: A Difficult Balance.” Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5, no.2 (2016): 359-364.
  • Joppke, Christian. “Pluralism vs. Pluralism.” Religion, Secularism, and Constitu-tional Democracy içinde, yazan Jean L. Cohen ve Cecile Laborde, 89-112. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.
  • Kaplan, Benjamin J. Divided by faith: Religious conflict and the practice of tole-ration in early modern Europe. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2009.
  • Langer, Susanne K. Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. London: Harvard University Press, 2009.
  • Lewis, Tom. “What not to wear: religious rights, the European Court, and the margin of appreciation.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2007): 395-414.
  • Lock, Tobias. “Of Crucifixes and Headscarves: Religious Symbols in German Schools.” Law, Religious Freedoms and Education in Europe, yazan My-riam Hunter-Henin, 347-369. Farham England: Ashgate Pub., 2011.
  • Marshall, Jill. “Conditions for freedom? European human rights law and the Islamic headscarf debate.” Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 3 (2008): 631-654.
  • Martin, David. The future of Christianity: Reflections on violence and democ-racy, religion and secularization. New York: Routledge, 2016.
  • Miedema, Siebren. “Contexts, debates and perspectives of religion in education in Europe.” Contexts, deReligion and Education in Europe: Develop-ments, contexts and debates, yazan Robert Jackson, Siebren Miedema, Wolfram Weisse ve Jean-Paul Willaime, 267-283. München: Waxmann, 2007.
  • Modood, Tariq. “2011 Paul Hanly Furfey LectureIs There a Crisis of Secularism in Western Europe?” Sociology of Religion 73, no. 2 (2012): 130-149.
  • Modood, Tariq. “State-Religion Connections and Multicultural Citizenship.” Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Democracy, yazan Jean L. Cohen ve Cecile Laborde, 182-203. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.
  • O'Brien, Peter. The Muslim Question in Europe: Political Controversies and Public Philosophies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2016.
  • Oliva, Javier García. “Religious Dress Codes in the United Kingdom.” Religion in Public Spaces: A European Perspective içinde, yazan Silvio Ferrari ve Sabrina Pastorelli, 217. London: Routledge, 2016.
  • Reichard, Gladys Amanda. Navaho religion: a study of symbolism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014.
  • Romero, Alicia Cebada. “The European Court of Human Rights and Religion: Between Christian Neutrality and the Fear of Islam.” NZJPIL 11 (2013): 75.
  • Ronchi, Paolo. “Crucifixes, margin of appreciation and consensus: the Grand Chamber ruling in Lautsi v Italy.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 13, no. 03 (2011): 287-297.
  • Rowe, Emma E. “Politics, religion and morals: the symbolism of public schoo-ling for the urban middle-class identity.” International Studies in Socio-logy of Education, 2016: 1-15.
  • Said, Edward W. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world (Fully revised edition). London: Random Ho-use, 2008.
  • Schreiner, Peter. “Religious education in the European context.” Crossings and Crosses: Borders, Educations, and Religions in Northern Europe, yazan Jenny Berglund ve Peter Thomas Lundén, 139-154. Boston: CPI Books Gmbh, 2015.
  • Scolnicov, Anat. “On a Wing and a Prayer: Indirect Religious Discrimination in the European Court of Human Rights.” Oxford Journal of Law and Reli-gion 5, no. 1 (2016): 158-161.
  • Shadid, Wasif ve P. Sjoerd Van Koningsveld. “Muslim dress in Europe: debates on the headscarf.” Journal of Islamic Studies 16, no.1 (2005): 35-61.
  • Squatrito, Theresa. “Domestic legislatures and international human rights law: Legislating on religious symbols in Europe.” Journal of Human Rights 15, no. 4 (2016): 550-570.
  • Steiner, Henry J., Philip Alston ve Ryan Goodman. International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Taylor, Paul M. Freedom of religion: UN and European human rights law and practice. London: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • Ulusoy, Ali. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'nin Üniversitelerde Türban Ya-sağına İlişkin Kararları Üzerine Notlar.” AÜHFD, 53, No: 3 (2004): 125-134.
  • Weber, Michel. “Symbolism, Its Meaning and Effect: The Universal Algebra of Culture” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philo-sophy 12, no.1 (2016): 350-377.
  • Weiler, Joseph HH. “Lautsi: crucifix in the classroom redux.” European journal of international law Journal europeen de droit international 21, no. 1 (2010): 1-6.
  • Zoethout, Carla M. “Religious symbols in the public school classroom: a new way to tackle a knotty problem.” Religion and Human Rights 6, no. 3 (2011): 285-290.

The Legality of Religious Symbols in European Schools

Year 2017, , 793 - 825, 15.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.356795

Abstract

Abstract: The European Court of Human
Rights, established in 1959 as the unit of the Council of Europe, is the
judicial authority that resolves individual, legal personality and
international problems within the scope of fundamental rights defined in the
'European Convention on Human Rights' and other protocols. Historically, the
European Court of Human Rights has taken various decisions that are considered
within the scope of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Court
defines in its decision, and in particular, what it can be judged within the
context of the religious symbol, from a secular point of view. The court recognized
the right to freedom of belief and religion, on the other hand, described this
right as a declaration of belief in public. The study was designed with a
'conceptual screening model' approaching religious symbols on the basis of
freedom of religion and belief. Although this study seems to be in essence a
literature review, conceptual screening differs from the literature review
method in that it examines the different aspects of a concept within the scope
of different science and disciplines. The purpose of this study is to determine
the attitude of the European Court of Human Rights to the religious symbols of
schools. As a consequence of this work, the nature and scope of local and
forbidden legal initiatives against the growing religious symbolism in European
schools over the last years have been determined. However, the place of
religion in European educational systems and the "church-state
relationship" within the social system is another consequence of this
study. This study also specifies that the decisions of the courts should be
shaped to express religious beliefs and traditions freely in the public sphere
.

Summary: From the European reconstruction era, the presence of religious symbols,
in many cases Islamic symbols, has increasingly become a problem in modern
Europe, especially in public spaces and especially in public schools. This has
led to a large-scale debate and social distinctions about the limits of the
concept of religious freedom. At the same time, the fact that the
constitutional courts of the countries have declared that the symbols specific
to certain cultures can be freely represented by the society have caused new
debates. This study is mainly focused on the view of the European legal
systems, and in particular the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), on the
basis of the religious symbolism and freedom of religion and belief. This study
gives places to discussions regarding the use of crosses and other religious
symbols in schools in Germany, Italy, and Romania. Moreover, the ambivalent
attitude of the local courts and the ECHR against the religious symbols are
discussed in the study.

In Europe has a historically shaped state, public and
religious institutions. The European States has legislative, executive and
judicial institutions evolving over the Greek and Roman Civilizations.
Additionally, the nations connected to each other by the concept of common
religion and culture constitute European public opinion in general. In Europe,
religious institutions have adopted a belief system traditionally shaped in
Roman times. Although there are sectarian differences across Europe, the
Christianity has generally been adopted. The Catholic church (Vatican), which
has played a very dominant role in all social areas since the Middle Ages, has
lost this power since the age of illumination. Along with the Enlightenment,
European states have begun to adopt the traditional view of secularism, which
separates religion and state relations and reduces the influence of religion on
state organs. Thus, the dominant religious power over the states has weakened
and the church has continued its life in society and the public sphere.

The ECHR, established in 1959 as an organ of the
Council of Europe, is tasked with resolving disputes between individuals and
legal entities, and between themselves, and with the states, in the exercise of
the fundamental rights of various contracts. The ECHR lays down the depletion
of domestic legal channels primarily as a condition for application because of
the high nature of the court. Plus, the ECHR has adopted a compromise approach
to solving the problems. The ECHR clearly states that citizens freely express
their freedom of religion, conscience, and belief, while its provisions depend
on secularism as well. Some ECHR verdicts reshape the definition of public
space in accordance with the principle of ‘secularity’ instead of the
‘neutrality’.

According to Decision 1804 of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning the state, religion, secularism
and human rights, religion is regarded as an important place in European
history, but in the practice requires the separation of church and state.
Despite this decision, the Council and the Court have not succeeded in
recognizing the different views of the member states in matters such as the
role of religion in schools. There is a dominant view that the secular states
in which the public decision-making processes are based solely on secular
debates in the ECHR are in accordance with the principles of liberal European
democracy. In the decisions of local courts in Europe, human rights are
increasingly being taken into account. In doing so, the courts are failing to
determine the ideological nature of secularism. The judgments of the courts
result in the suppression of the religious views of individuals by liberal
values.






























From all the discussions that have been made, it can
be determined that the ECHR and, indeed, the local courts and the society are
historically more biased towards non-Christian religions and cultures, despite
adopting a secular understanding. Besides, it is noteworthy that in many of the
countries' public sphere, Islamic religious symbols are mostly restricted. The
main reason for these restrictions is thought to be Islamophobia and
xenophobia. In European societies and in western societies in general,
religious symbols are seen as belonging, and along with the growing Islamophobic
and far-right trends, especially Christian symbols are used extensively in
public spaces. In addition, it is also possible to ban the use of symbols
identified in particular in Islam (such as headscarves) in public sphere and
even punish those who use them, in various countries, including France and
Austria. Besides, the use of religious symbols in schools should not be
regarded as a cultural value alone. Religious symbols are an important part of
a religion and concrete indications of its existence in a society. It would be
more accurate to see the symbols of Christianity in schools as a means of
assimilation rather than as a means of culture.

References

  • AlSayyad, Nezar ve Manuel Castells. Muslim Europe or Euro-Islam: politics, culture, and citizenship in the age of globalization. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002.
  • Asad, Talal. Genealogies of religion: Discipline and reasons of power in Christi-anity and Islam. London: JHU Press, 2009.
  • Auslander, Leora. “Bavarian Crucifixes and French Headscarves Religious Signs and the Postmodern European State.” Cultural Dynamics 12, no. 3 (2000): 283-309.
  • Baltacı, Ali. “A Comparison of Syrian Migrant Students in Turkey and Germany: Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Career Expectations.” European Journal of Educational Research 6, no. 1 (2014): 15-27.
  • Baltacı, Ali ve Ali Balcı. “Complexity Leadership: A Theorical Perspective”. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management 6, no. 1 (2017): 30-58.
  • Bretscher, Fabienne. The Swiss Judiciary and International Human Rights Bo-dies: A Closer Look at Muslim Religious Practices in Public Schools. Zu-rich: University of Zurich, 2016.
  • Burki, Shahid Javed. “The Rise of Extremist Islam.” Rising Powers and Global Governance içinde, yazan Shahid Javed Burki, 139-159. Maryland: Palgra-ve Macmillan US, 2017.
  • Calo, Zachary R. “Secularism and the European Court of Human Rights.” Journal of Law and Religion 26, no. 1 (2010): 261-280.
  • Caygill, Howard ve Alan Scott. “The basic law versus the basic norm? The case of the Bavarian crucifix order.” Political Studies 44, no.3 (1996): 505-516.
  • Cesari, Jocelyne. When Islam and democracy meet: Muslims in Europe and in the United States. New York: Springer, 2004.
  • Dorondel, Ștefan. “Orthodoxy, nationalism, and local identities: a Romanian case study.” Ethnologia Balkanica 06 (2002): 117-144.
  • Dunlap, Knight. Religion: Its function in human life: A study of religion from the point of view of psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill publications, 1946.
  • Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in comparative religion. Lincoln: Universiy of Nebraska, 1996.
  • Evans, Malcolm D. “From cartoons to crucifixes: current controversies concer-ning the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression before the European Court of Human Rights.” Journal of Law and Religion 26, no. 1 (2010): 345-370.
  • Gordon, Wendy J. “A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individua-lism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property.” The Yale Law Journal 102, no. 7 (1993): 1533-1609.
  • Horváth, Gizela ve Rozalia Bako. “Religious icons in Romanian schools: text and context.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 8 no. 24 (2009): 189-205.
  • Jaspers, Karl. Felsefeye Giriş, çeviren: Mehmet Akalın, İstanbul: Dergâh yayınla-rı, 1981.
  • Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2011.
  • Jones, Emma. “Fair Access Versus Religious Freedom: A Difficult Balance.” Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5, no.2 (2016): 359-364.
  • Joppke, Christian. “Pluralism vs. Pluralism.” Religion, Secularism, and Constitu-tional Democracy içinde, yazan Jean L. Cohen ve Cecile Laborde, 89-112. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.
  • Kaplan, Benjamin J. Divided by faith: Religious conflict and the practice of tole-ration in early modern Europe. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2009.
  • Langer, Susanne K. Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. London: Harvard University Press, 2009.
  • Lewis, Tom. “What not to wear: religious rights, the European Court, and the margin of appreciation.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2007): 395-414.
  • Lock, Tobias. “Of Crucifixes and Headscarves: Religious Symbols in German Schools.” Law, Religious Freedoms and Education in Europe, yazan My-riam Hunter-Henin, 347-369. Farham England: Ashgate Pub., 2011.
  • Marshall, Jill. “Conditions for freedom? European human rights law and the Islamic headscarf debate.” Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 3 (2008): 631-654.
  • Martin, David. The future of Christianity: Reflections on violence and democ-racy, religion and secularization. New York: Routledge, 2016.
  • Miedema, Siebren. “Contexts, debates and perspectives of religion in education in Europe.” Contexts, deReligion and Education in Europe: Develop-ments, contexts and debates, yazan Robert Jackson, Siebren Miedema, Wolfram Weisse ve Jean-Paul Willaime, 267-283. München: Waxmann, 2007.
  • Modood, Tariq. “2011 Paul Hanly Furfey LectureIs There a Crisis of Secularism in Western Europe?” Sociology of Religion 73, no. 2 (2012): 130-149.
  • Modood, Tariq. “State-Religion Connections and Multicultural Citizenship.” Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Democracy, yazan Jean L. Cohen ve Cecile Laborde, 182-203. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.
  • O'Brien, Peter. The Muslim Question in Europe: Political Controversies and Public Philosophies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2016.
  • Oliva, Javier García. “Religious Dress Codes in the United Kingdom.” Religion in Public Spaces: A European Perspective içinde, yazan Silvio Ferrari ve Sabrina Pastorelli, 217. London: Routledge, 2016.
  • Reichard, Gladys Amanda. Navaho religion: a study of symbolism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014.
  • Romero, Alicia Cebada. “The European Court of Human Rights and Religion: Between Christian Neutrality and the Fear of Islam.” NZJPIL 11 (2013): 75.
  • Ronchi, Paolo. “Crucifixes, margin of appreciation and consensus: the Grand Chamber ruling in Lautsi v Italy.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 13, no. 03 (2011): 287-297.
  • Rowe, Emma E. “Politics, religion and morals: the symbolism of public schoo-ling for the urban middle-class identity.” International Studies in Socio-logy of Education, 2016: 1-15.
  • Said, Edward W. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world (Fully revised edition). London: Random Ho-use, 2008.
  • Schreiner, Peter. “Religious education in the European context.” Crossings and Crosses: Borders, Educations, and Religions in Northern Europe, yazan Jenny Berglund ve Peter Thomas Lundén, 139-154. Boston: CPI Books Gmbh, 2015.
  • Scolnicov, Anat. “On a Wing and a Prayer: Indirect Religious Discrimination in the European Court of Human Rights.” Oxford Journal of Law and Reli-gion 5, no. 1 (2016): 158-161.
  • Shadid, Wasif ve P. Sjoerd Van Koningsveld. “Muslim dress in Europe: debates on the headscarf.” Journal of Islamic Studies 16, no.1 (2005): 35-61.
  • Squatrito, Theresa. “Domestic legislatures and international human rights law: Legislating on religious symbols in Europe.” Journal of Human Rights 15, no. 4 (2016): 550-570.
  • Steiner, Henry J., Philip Alston ve Ryan Goodman. International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Taylor, Paul M. Freedom of religion: UN and European human rights law and practice. London: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • Ulusoy, Ali. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'nin Üniversitelerde Türban Ya-sağına İlişkin Kararları Üzerine Notlar.” AÜHFD, 53, No: 3 (2004): 125-134.
  • Weber, Michel. “Symbolism, Its Meaning and Effect: The Universal Algebra of Culture” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philo-sophy 12, no.1 (2016): 350-377.
  • Weiler, Joseph HH. “Lautsi: crucifix in the classroom redux.” European journal of international law Journal europeen de droit international 21, no. 1 (2010): 1-6.
  • Zoethout, Carla M. “Religious symbols in the public school classroom: a new way to tackle a knotty problem.” Religion and Human Rights 6, no. 3 (2011): 285-290.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Subjects Religious Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Ali Baltacı 0000-0003-2550-8698

Publication Date December 15, 2017
Submission Date November 21, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017

Cite

ISNAD Baltacı, Ali. “The Legality of Religious Symbols in European Schools”. Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 21/2 (December 2017), 793-825. https://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.356795.

Cited By

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY NC) ile lisanslanmıştır.