The Neutral State and the Mandatory Crucifix

Religion and Human Rights 6 (3):259–264 (2011)
In this article we present a conceptual overview of relevant interpretations of what state neutrality may imply; we suggest a distinction between inclusive neutrality and exclusive neutrality. This distinction provides a useful framework for understanding the several positions as presented by the parties in the Lautsi case. We conclude by suggesting a solution of the Lautsi case that might provide a more viable solution.
Keywords neutrality  crucifix  Lautsi  liberalism  European Court if Human Rights
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,411
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Noriaki Iwasa (2010). The Impossibility of Political Neutrality. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (29):147-155.
Tim Nieguth (1999). Privilege or Recognition? The Myth of State Neutrality. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 2 (2):112-131.
Christopher Lowry (2009). Beyond Equality of What: Sen and Neutrality. Les ateliers de l'éthique/The Ethics Forum 4 (2):226-235.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

194 ( #20,008 of 1,924,716 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #417,761 of 1,924,716 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.