Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Judges and Religious Questions: Adjudicating Claims to Wear Religious Dress in Public Schools

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Religion & Human Rights

This article examines how judges in different countries treat "religious questions", as opposed to "legal questions", through the lens of one particular type of dispute: the expression of religious identity by wearing religious dress in public schools, contrary to state educational policy with secular democracies. Like the 'political questions' doctrine, issues of institutional competence and propriety arise in relation to the extent to which courts should engage with religious laws and reference these in developing public law norms. Much turns upon understandings of what the principle of secularity requires in a particular jurisdiction and the particular type of religious question implicated. It argues that while it is inappropriate for judges to address normative religious question which engages some form of theological inquiry, judges may have competence to address positive religious questions relating to the content of religious doctrine or the centrality of a practice to a religious community through reliance on expert evidence. Nevertheless, prudential considerations may still urge judicial self-restraint when address religious questions.

Affiliations: 1: Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Religion & Human Rights — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation