Abstract
The last chapter discussed the importance of religious freedom and juxtaposed this with cases decided on by the European Court of Human Rights, which have increasingly restricted this freedom. The examples took up cases originating from Turkey and France. I examined how the Court has understood and evaluated Islamic jurisprudence, and how this might have helped shape the reasons for the restrictions on religious freedom. I am now going to connect this reasoning to the events in France that helped bring that case to the ECHR. Importantly, I am also going to examine how the ECHR influenced the creation of the 2004 law, which banned the veil in public schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See (Popkin 2001) P. 35-49. See also (Baubérot and Dagens 2005).
- 3.
As reprinted in (Orend 2002) P. 242.
- 4.
(Baubérot 2000).
- 5.
(Bowen 2007) P. 26.
- 6.
(Bowen 2007) P. 25.
- 7.
(Baubérot and Dagens 2005) P. 64.
- 8.
(Bowen 2007) P. 27. I present here a skeletal narrative of the history of laïcité. Bowen has a more exhaustive version which rightly touches on the laws of 1901 as well as the “amending” laws of 1907/1908 and subsequent developments. While important, this is not the major thrust of this chapter and thus is presented only in limited form. See also (Baubérot and Dagens 2005).
- 9.
This was repeated frequently during my year in France, but I have not been able to find sources to substantiate this claim.
- 10.
See (Fernando 2014) P. 10-12.
- 11.
- 12.
The advocates included Elisabeth Badinter, Régis Debray, Alain Finkielkraut, Elisabeth de Fontenay and Catherine Kintzler who published a manifesto in the magazine the Nouvel Observateur following the 1989 upheaval around the headscarf in public schools. The manifesto called on teachers not to capitulate to the pressure of difference and implored French society to uphold forced integration of minorities in the Republic. For the full text of the manifesto: http://www.laicite-republique.org/foulard-islamique-profs-ne.html (accessed 14 April 2015).
- 13.
This was advocated for by Joëlle Brunerie-Kaufmann, Harlem Désir, René Dumont, Gilles Perrault and Alain Touraine, in the November issue of the magazine Polis. It was a direct response to the article in the Nouvel Observateur (see footnote 12). See (Baubérot 2009) P. 89-90.
- 14.
(Baubérot 2009) P. 189-194.
- 15.
(Gresh 2005) P. 9-10.
- 16.
(Gresh 2005) P. 10-14.
- 17.
(Kaltenbach and Tribalat 2002) P. 15.
- 18.
(Stasi 2004) P. 33.
- 19.
(Stasi 2004) P. 24-25.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
(Baubérot 2009) P. 191.
- 23.
(Bowen 2007) P. 33.
- 24.
- 25.
(Popkin 2001) See Popkin Chapters 1-6 in particular.
- 26.
- 27.
There are certainly other examples of the accommodations made, only two follow.
- 28.
(Nielsen 2004) P. 13.
- 29.
(Nielsen 2004) P. 13.
- 30.
(Nonneman et al. 1996) P. 222.
- 31.
(Nielsen 2004) P. 13. Nielsen states that while statistics are unreliable, by mid 1985 around nine hundred forty-one places of Muslim worship existed in France.
- 32.
(Baubérot 2012).
- 33.
(Baubérot 2009) P. 189-198.
- 34.
It is important to note that the girls came back to school on 9 October after an agreement had been reached that they would wear their veils to school and in the hallways, but not in class. They chose to break with that agreement on 19 October. Two of the girls returned to school, unveiled and without further explanation, on 2 December. See http://www.unc.edu/depts/europe/conferences/Veil2000/chronol1.htm for a detailed chronology of the events from September-December 1989 (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 35.
(El Hamel 2002) P. 297.
- 36.
This paragraph is taken from Luis Cardoso’s testimony given at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) conference entitled “The Veil.” (Cardoso 2002) His paper is available at: http://www.unc.edu/depts/europe/conferences/Veil2000/articles/coeur1.htm (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 37.
(Cardoso 2002) P. 2.
- 38.
According to Luis Cardoso, for example, his high school of 800 students counted at least twenty-five different nationalities.
- 39.
See also (Lévy et al. 2004).
- 40.
(Un rapport s’alarme de la montée des communautarismes a l’école 2004).
- 41.
In December 1990 a high school in Monfermeil, also near Paris, passed a regulation that banned all distinctive symbols from their school. See (O’Brien 2005) P. XVII.
- 42.
As translated (O’Brien 2005) P. 2. My emphasis.
- 43.
See the book-length interviews conducted with two of the girls who refused to remove their headscarves. On pp. 28-33 they report how different teachers dealt with their insistence on wearing the veil: some tried to persuade them to take it off through discussion, others talked about laïcité and “fitting in,” others simply ignored them (Lévy et al. 2004) P. 28-33.
- 44.
As translated by (O’Brien 2005) P. xviii and P. 2. My emphasis.
- 45.
By 2002 there were 150 separate incidents that needed the involvement of the mediator, according to Hilal Elver in (Elver 2012) P. 116.
- 46.
See http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnDocument?base=JADE&nod=JGXAX1994X03X0000045656 (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 47.
See http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnDocument?base=JADE&nod=JGXAX1995X03X0000059981 (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 48.
See for example http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnDocument?base=JADE&nod=JGXCX1996X11X0000072663 (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 49.
Not defining key terms is a strategy employed by the Courts that allows them to remain more flexible in their interpretation.
- 50.
(Lacey 2006).
- 51.
This is only one of many “compromise approaches” which could have been proposed. The very nature of such situations of give and take means that there would have been students, administrators, teachers and parents who would have objected to the specifics of the deal, but this seems inevitable given the importance of the beliefs and values involved.
- 52.
A more strongly worded statement by the courts might also have addressed those students and teachers who, it seemed, took advantage of the situation to advance their own particular cause or ideology. I am thinking here of students who refused to take part in physical education classes, citing the veil or cultural reasons for their absence, and teachers who maintained that the veil was an obstruction to students’ proper and full participation.
- 53.
This is as opposed to derogation in times of public emergency, which I will not address here.
- 54.
(Brownlie 1995).
- 55.
Article 55 of the French Constitution states that all treaties entered into will become part of national law and will take precedence over other laws, but do not take precedence over constitutional standards. See (Garay et al. 2005) P. 786. France acceded to the ICCPR in 1980. See http://indicators.ohchr.org/ (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 56.
They include the Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences and the International Commission of Jurists.
- 57.
September 28, 1984, United Nations ECOR Commission on Human Rights 41st Session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1984/4 as reprinted in (Various 1985).
- 58.
Section A. I (5).
- 59.
Section A. I (6)(10). See also (Vyver 2005) P. 509.
- 60.
(Vyver 2005) Section B (vii).
- 61.
(Vyver 2005) Section B (iii).
- 62.
See http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=005&CM=&DF=&CL = ENG. France ratified in 1974 (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 63.
See (Brownlie 1995) P. 333.
- 64.
(Martínez-Torrón 2005) P. 634.
- 65.
(Martínez-Torrón 2005) P. 634.
- 66.
Ferry testified in front of the Commission on 6 September 2003. In my conversations with three Stasi Commission members, each one of them identified this as a major disappointment and problem. The Commission never had reliable figures to help them assess the level and degree of veiling in public schools, yet they were considering a law that would ban the veil nationally.
- 67.
(Cherifi 2005) P. 41. The author of the report, Hanifa Cherifi, qualifies this number by acknowledging that the numbers for the year before the law was passed are “under reported” since not all religious symbols were included. In addition, since schools were not in the habit of maintaining these numbers, many cases were not officially reported. See pages 24-25. It should be noted that Hanifa Cherifi identifies as a Muslim and has acted as mediator on the issue of the veil (Silverstein 2004) P. 148.
- 68.
(Cherifi 2005) P. 20-29.
- 69.
See footnote 116 below.
- 70.
A short L’Express newspaper article (23 October 2003) mentions initiatives taken by the Ministry of Education to provide opportunities for principals, especially those in high conflict areas, to meet so that they do not feel isolated.
- 71.
It is not always the case that immigrant or second-generation families live on the outskirts of a city. Marseille is an exception.
- 72.
The existence of discrimination and racism, particularly in the workforce, is a problem widely discussed. In the 2005 report of a governmental committee called to evaluate discrimination in the workforce Roger Fauroux writes, “We join our protest with that of our predecessors. Discrimination in the workforce vis-à-vis maghrebins or blacks…irrespective of whether they are French or not, is practised widely and with impunity” (Fauroux July 2005) P. 1. My translation.
- 73.
More on this in the next chapter.
- 74.
(Silverstein 2004) See Silverstein Chapter 3.
- 75.
It should be noted that the Stasi commission was not the first commission to be called to look at laïcité in France. In 2003 the Debré commission was formed which examined religious symbols in public schools. Other commissions looked at secularism in the workforce (Rossinot Commission in 2006) and the construction of religious buildings and cemeteries (Machelon Commission in 2006).
- 76.
The Mediator of the Republic is an independent public figure providing mediation between government agencies and their clients when a dispute arises.
- 77.
The members of the Commission included: Mohammed Arkoun, Jean Bauberot, Hanifa Cherifi, Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux, Regis Debray, Michel Delebarre, Nicole Guedj, Ghislaine Hudson, Gilles Kepel, Marceau Long, Nelly Olin, Henri Pena-Ruiz, Gaye Petek, Maurice Quenet, René Remond, Raymond Soubie, Bernard Stasi, Alain Touraine and Patrick Weil.
- 78.
(Stasi 2004) P. 5. My translation.
- 79.
Each hearing consisted of a testimonial and was typically followed by questions posed by Commission members. Questions were generally not submitted in advance and came in reaction to the presentation. The public television channel Public Sénat recorded all the open hearings, and many of them were simultaneously televised. They are also available to view at the Institut National de l’Audiovisuel where anyone with a pass to the national library can have access. This is where I saw all the interviews referred to here.
- 80.
For a complete list of public and closed-door testimonies, see Annexes 2 and 3 of Rapport 2004 (P. 157-166). In their initial meetings Commission members were also able to recommend witnesses, although since time was short some of these were not able to testify.
- 81.
I have chosen to refrain from naming the Stasi Commission members I interviewed. While some of them are still involved with these issues, some have moved on and do not wish to be re-entangled. I respect their decisions.
- 82.
(Stasi 2004) P. 125.
- 83.
(Stasi 2004) P. 126.
- 84.
This was told to me in one of my interviews with a Commission member and can be found here: (Stasi 2004) P. 102.
- 85.
(Stasi 2004) P. 103.
- 86.
See the publication by the European Union Monitoring Center entitled Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/156-Manifestations_EN.pdf (accessed 26 March 2015).
- 87.
Identified mostly as “Muslim boys” in all the interviews with Stasi Commission members. This was also consistent with the interviews with principals and teachers which I conducted throughout the year. However, I did not interview any women who veiled or did not veil who attested to this. That is not to say that there is not an important gender divide on this issue, but to remark that those women I interviewed were not in line with this testimony. More research needs to be done in order to ascertain where and how the gender divide is issued and maintained.
- 88.
The principal’s union was supportive of the law.
- 89.
More on this in the chapters to follow.
- 90.
There are a small number of private Islamic schools in France. Averroés, a private Islamic High School in Lille, was recently ranked as one of the best schools in France. (24, France 2013) Another school opened in Vitry-sur-Seine in March 2008 (see the website: http://www.education-savoir.fr/) (accessed 14 April 2015).
- 91.
See also (Fernando 2014) P. 81.
- 92.
I spoke at length with the principal of an unrecognized Islamic school located to the east of Paris. School officials had been trying to secure approval by the state for two full years and although they had met all of the official requirements (certain number of students, ministry qualified teachers, curriculum reviews etc.), they had yet to be successful. They felt it was a matter of discrimination, for the state had no justifiable cause, of which they were aware, for denying the approval.
- 93.
Costa cited as examples Kadac v. Turkey, Refah Partisi v. Turkey and Dalab v. Switzerland, among others.
- 94.
I gleaned all the information in this paragraph and subsequent material directly from the original recording made of the session. Recordings of all the public sessions were made by the public television channel Public Sénat. These recordings are made available through the Institut National de l’Audiovisuel (INA) (website: http://inatheque.ina.fr/) located in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.
- 95.
“La Commission propose d’insérer dans un texte de loi portant sur la laïcité la disposition suivante: “Dans le respect de la liberté de conscience et du caractère propre des établissements privés sous contrat, sont interdits dans les écoles, collèges et lycées les tenues et signes manifestant une appartenance religieuse ou politique. Toute sanction est proportionnée et prise après que l’élève a été invité à se conformer à ses obligations.” Cette disposition serait inséparable de l’exposé des motifs suivant: “Les tenues et signes religieux interdits sont les signes ostensibles, tels que grande croix, voile ou kippa. Ne sont pas regardés comme des signes manifestant une appartenance religieuse les signes discrets que sont par exemple médailles, petites croix, étoiles de David, mains de Fatimah, ou petits Coran.” Cette proposition a été adoptée par la Commission à l’unanimité des présents moins une abstention.” (Stasi 2004) P. 128-129.
- 96.
(Stasi 2004) P. 129. My translation.
- 97.
Just over six hundred fifty articles were written about or including the veil from September 1, 2003 to January 1, 2004 – and this in two of France’s newspapers (Le Monde and Le Figaro).
- 98.
Two of the other recommendations made by the Commission included the establishment of an institute of research and learning about Islam and creating national holidays around non- Christian holidays such as Yom Kippur and Eid ul-Fitr. They also addressed “reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in prisons and hospitals (Stasi 2004) P. 111-143.
- 99.
See (Stasi 2004).
- 100.
(Stasi 2004) P. 25-27.
- 101.
Relevant pieces of these articles are as follows:
Article 1: La République assure la liberté de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les seules restrictions édictées ci-après dans l’intérêt de l’ordre public.
Article 2: La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte. En conséquence, à partir du 1er janvier qui suivra la promulgation de la présente loi, seront supprimées des budgets de l’Etat, des départements et des communes, toutes dépenses relatives à l’exercice des cultes.
- 102.
The situation was slightly different in Alsace-Lorraine which signed a special concordat in which the state recognized the existing religions and obliged it to pay the salaries of clergy.
- 103.
See (Baubérot and Dagens 2005) P. 63-70. For a full text version of the law of 1905, see also: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/MCEBW.htm (last accessed 26 March 2015).
- 104.
The report mentions that the UDHR has “…n’a aucune valeur juridique contraignante…” However, there is a strong legal case to be made that certain articles of the UDHR can be considered part of customary law and thus applicable to all states, ratification status aside. On the formation of customary law, see (Malanczuk 1997) P. 39-46.
- 105.
The report outlines different models of church-state relations and discusses briefly the
differences among them in relation to several European states (such as the United Kingdom and Germany) (Stasi 2004) P. 71-80.
- 106.
For more on this, see General Comment (1993) General Comment Adopted by the Human Rights Committee under Article 40, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Addendum, General Comment No.22 (48) (Article 18), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4 (27 September 1993), http://www.un.org/en/documents/.
- 107.
Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedec v. France (Application no. 27417/95, 27 June 2000).
- 108.
Nor of Article 9 in conjunction with Article 14. Article 14 states: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
- 109.
Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedec v. France. Paragraph 84.
- 110.
Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey (Application nos. 41340/98, 41342/98 and 41344/98, 13 February 2003).
- 111.
(Stasi 2004) P. 48.
- 112.
Dahlab v. Switzerland. (Application no.42393/98, 15 February 2001) Declared inadmissible.
- 113.
(Stasi 2004) P. 49.
- 114.
Article 1 states: “Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit. Le règlement intérieur rappelle que la mise en œuvre d’une procédure disciplinaire est précédée d’un dialogue avec l’élève.”
- 115.
(Cherifi 2005) P. 7.
- 116.
In his article defending French laïcité as a liberal concept vis-à-vis the law banning
religious symbols in state schools, historian and Commission member Patrick Weil asserts that “The number of female students wearing the hijab in French high schools was probably 5-10 times the number officially released.” In his supporting footnote he states that “the data collected by the commission was sufficient to prove the important underestimation of the phenomenon by official data statements. Yet, the lack of resources and a short deadline did not permit us to evaluate the exact number of headscarves worn in French public school. Alain Touraine, a colleague in the Commission, confirms that statement.” It would be helpful if this sentiment – so powerful in its persuasiveness that the Commission recommended a law – were quantified or more thoroughly substantiated (Weil 2009) P. 2707.
- 117.
I say indirectly here because the Stasi report does not explicitly lay out the legal reasons for recommending a law banning religious symbols in public schools. The argument for creating a law was supported in the report by alluding to European Court case law dealing with similar issues.
- 118.
- 119.
(Little 2008) P. 253.
- 120.
See also Comment No. 22, paragraph 8. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4 (27 September 1993).
- 121.
My research shows that the majority of women are not forced to veil. See also (Killian 2006).
References
24, France. 2013. France’s first private Muslim school tops the ranks. France 24 Online. http://www.france24.com/en/20130329-france-first-private-muslim-school-tops-ranks-averroes. Accessed 1 August 2015.
Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity, Cultural memory in the present. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Baubérot, Jean. 2000. Histoire de la laïcité française. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Baubérot, Jean. 2009. Laïcité and the challenge of ‘Republicanism’. Modern and Contemporary France 17(2): 189-198.
Baubérot, Jean. 2012. Aucune laïcité n’est absolue. Le Huffington Post, 14 November 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jean-bauberot/laicite-francaise-quelques-aspects_b_2117881.html.
Baubérot, Jean, and Claude Dagens. 2005. La Laïcité en France. Paris: Parole et Silence.
Bencheikh, Soheib. 1998. Marianne et le Prophète: l’Islam dans la France Laïque. Paris: Grasset.
Bowen, John R. 2007. Why the French don’t like headscarves: Islam, the state, and public space. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brownlie, Ian. 1995. Basic documents in international law, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cardoso, Luis. 2002. At the heart of the “Affair”: A professor from creil provides testimony. The veil, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Cherifi, Hanifa. 2005. Application de la loi du 15 mars 2004, ed. Ministère de L’Education Nationale de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche: Ministère de L’Education Nationale.
Debray, Régis. 2004. Ce que Nous Voile le Voile: la République et le Sacre. Paris: Gallimard.
El Hamel, Chouki. 2002. Muslim diaspora in Western Europe: The Islamic headscarf (Hijab), the media and Muslims’ integration in France. Citizenship Studies 6(3): 293-308.
Elver, Hilal. 2012. The headscarf controversy: Secularism and freedom of Religion, Religion and global politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fauroux, Roger. July 2005. La lutte contre les discriminations ethniques dans le domaine de l’emploi, ed. de la cohésion sociale et du logement Ministère de l’emploi.
Fernando, Mayanthi L. 2014. The republic unsettled: Muslim French and the contradictions of secularism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Garay, Alain, Blandine Chelini-Pont, Emmanuel Tawil, and Zarah Anseur. 2005. The permissible scope of legal limitations on the freedom of religion or belief in France. Emory International Law Review 19(2): 785-840.
Gresh, Alain. 2005. Islam de France, Islams d’Europe. Paris: Harmattan.
Gunn, T. Jeremy. 2004. Under God but not the scarf. Journal of Church and State 46(1): 7-24.
Hargreaves, Alex G., John Kelsay, and Sumner B. Twiss. 2007. Politics and religion in France and the United States. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Kaltenbach, Jeanne-Hélène, and Michèle Tribalat. 2002. La république et l’islam: entre crainte et aveuglement. Paris: Gallimard.
Killian, Caitlin. 2006. North African women in France: Gender, culture, and identity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lacey, Marc. 2006. Altering the Hijab to the rules of the game. International Herald Tribune, March 31, 2.
Le Monde. 2004. Un Rapport s’Alarme de la Montée des Communautarismes a l’École. 10 July.
Lebovics, Herman. 1992. True France: The wars over cultural identity, 1900-1945. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lévy, Alma, Lila Lévy, Véronique Giraud, and Yves Sintomer. 2004. Des Filles Comme les Autres: Au-delà du Foulard, Cahiers libres. Paris: Découverte.
Little, David. 2008. Religious Liberty. In Christianity and law: An introduction, ed. John Witte Jr. and Frank S. Alexander. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Malanczuk, Peter. 1997. Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. 7th revised ed Aufl. London: Routledge.
Martínez-Torrón, Javier. 2005. Limitations on religious freedom in the case law of the European court of human rights. Emory International Law Review 19(2): 578-636.
Nielsen, Jørgen S. 2004. Muslims in Western Europe, New Edinburgh Islamic surveys, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Nonneman, Gerd, Tim Niblock, and Bogdan Szajkowski. 1996. Muslim communities in the New Europe, 1st ed. Reading: Ithaca Press.
O’Brien, Robert. 2005. The stasi report: The report of the committee of reflection on the application of the principle of secularity in the republic. Buffalo: Hein & Co.
Orend, Brian. 2002. Human rights: Concept and context. Toronto: Broadview Press.
Peña-Ruiz, Henri. 2005. Histoire de la laïcité: genèse d’un idéal. Paris: Gallimard.
Popkin, Jeremy D. 2001. A history of modern France, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Selby, Jennifer. 2012. Questioning French secularism: Gender politics and Islam in a Parisian suburb, Contemporary anthropology of religion. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Silverstein, Paul A. 2004. Algeria in France: Transpolitics race and nation, New anthropologies of Europe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Stasi, Bernard. 2004. Rapport de la Commission de Réflexion sur l’Application du Principe de Laïcité dans la République Remis au Président de la République le 11 Décembre 2003. Paris: La Documentation Française.
Taguieff, Pierre-André. 2005. La République enlisée: pluralisme, communautarisme et citoyenneté. Paris: Syrtes.
Various, V. 1985. The Siracusa principles on the limitation and derogation provisions in the international covenant on civil and political rights. Human Rights Quarterly 7(3): 3-14.
van der Vyver, Johan D. 2005. Limitations of freedom of religion or belief: International law perspectives. Emory International Law Review 19(2): 500-537.
Weil, Patrick. 2009. Why the French laïcité is liberal. Cardozo Law Review 30(6): 2699-2714.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Adrian, M. (2016). Why France Banned the Veil. In: Religious Freedom at Risk. Muslims in Global Societies Series, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21446-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21446-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21445-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21446-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)