Deliberating across Difference

Religious Accommodation and Deliberative Democracy

Bibliographic Data

ID21235263
AuthorsAfsoun Afsahi (0000-0002-1397-925X, University of Amsterdam, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume8
Issue1
Pages34-61
Publication date2020-08-21
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Law, Religion and State (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2212-6465 • E-ISSN: 2212-4810
PublisherAmsterdam University Press (PUBLISHER • NL)
DOI10.1163/22124810-2020004
OpenAlexW4206700969
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited1

This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future

Arbitration · Computer security · Deliberation · Deliberative democracy · Democracy · Empathy · Geography · Law and economics · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Computer Science · Law · Psychology · Religion and Society Interactions · Religion, Society, and Development · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access