The Regulation of Religion through National Normative Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis between Italy and Argentina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a compelling comparative analysis between a European and a Latin American country, specifically Italy and Argentina, which have not previously been examined in tandem. The breadth of data provided is extensive and meticulously considers various dimensions of the relationship between the State and Churches.
However, the academic significance of the study could be enhanced by embedding the analysis more deeply within the existing literature on State management of religions and State-Church relations. Clarifying how this study contributes to our broader understanding of these topics would be beneficial. Although the paper effectively engages with the literature on Church and State within the specific contexts of Italy and Argentina, it minimally references more general studies on the subject. Integrating these broader perspectives could strengthen the theoretical framework and contextualize the findings within the larger body of scholarly work. This would improve the conclusions that mostly state the differences between both countries, without addressing how the findings contribute, in a more general way, to our knowledge of State management of religions.
More specific issues to be addressed include:
· The assertion that "both in Italy and in Argentina, Roman Catholicism has long exercised a cultural, religious, spiritual, economic, and political hegemony over the country" (72-73) appears exaggerated, especially in the context of Argentina. The concept of the "Catholic nation" in Argentina is more accurately described as a myth.
· The claim that Argentine society "is secularizing" (144) may also be overstated. Not all "religious nones" are unbelievers, and there are diverse ways of practicing religion beyond church attendance, as highlighted in recent studies on "lived religion" in Latin America.
· A general explanation of the significant differences in the approval times for the various intese (in the Italian case) would be beneficial.
· The term "national being" (443) requires clarification.
· The phrase "police face" (446) is one of several translation issues that need to be addressed.
· When discussing the Argentine National Registry of Cults (473-478), it would be helpful to explicitly differentiate between "religions," "religious organizations and their branches," and "places of worship." Merely mentioning "religions" and "places of worship" creates confusion regarding the various levels of religious organization registration. Providing specific empirical examples of the types of inscriptions would enhance clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing is needed....
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we appreciated your commitment and agreed with your suggestions, and we thank you for your valuable contribution. We have done our best to accept and implement your advice, placing the article more firmly in the context of the debates on secularisation and the relationship between state and religion, as requested, while at the same time taking care not to go too far in the use of signs. We hope that the revisions have made the article clearer, more circumscribed and complete.
Comment 1:
The paper presents a compelling comparative analysis between a European and a Latin American country, specifically Italy and Argentina, which have not previously been examined in tandem. The breadth of data provided is extensive and meticulously considers various dimensions of the relationship between the State and Churches.
However, the academic significance of the study could be enhanced by embedding the analysis more deeply within the existing literature on State management of religions and State-Church relations. Clarifying how this study contributes to our broader understanding of these topics would be beneficial. Although the paper effectively engages with the literature on Church and State within the specific contexts of Italy and Argentina, it minimally references more general studies on the subject. Integrating these broader perspectives could strengthen the theoretical framework and contextualize the findings within the larger body of scholarly work. This would improve the conclusions that mostly state the differences between both countries, without addressing how the findings contribute, in a more general way, to our knowledge of State management of religions.
Response 1: A paragraph (2. Theoretical background) has been added (83), dealing with the debate on secularisation and state-religion relations; an attempt has been made to better explain the theoretical position and objectives of this contribution, both in paragraph 2. and through ad hoc insertions in the introduction and conclusions.
Comment 2: The assertion that "both in Italy and in Argentina, Roman Catholicism has long exercised a cultural, religious, spiritual, economic, and political hegemony over the country" (72-73) appears exaggerated, especially in the context of Argentina. The concept of the "Catholic nation" in Argentina is more accurately described as a myth.
Response 2: The sentence has been rewritten, reducing the extent of the influence of Catholicism (179).
Comment 3: The claim that Argentine society "is secularizing" (144) may also be overstated. Not all "religious nones" are unbelievers, and there are diverse ways of practicing religion beyond church attendance, as highlighted in recent studies on "lived religion" in Latin America.
Response 3: The affirmation of Argentine "secularization" was nuanced, showing the weight of sacralization practices and the presence of lived religion (161), while at the same time we observed a decline in more institutionalized religious practices (253)
Comment 4: A general explanation of the significant differences in the approval times for the various intese (in the Italian case) would be beneficial.
Response 4: A brief explanation has been added (509).
Comment 5 and 6: The term "national being" (443) requires clarification. The phrase "police face" (446) is one of several translation issues that need to be addressed.
Response 5 and 6: The terms requiring clarification were corrected and the main problematic phrases in the translation were replaced (569).
Comment 7: When discussing the Argentine National Registry of Cults (473-478), it would be helpful to explicitly differentiate between "religions," "religious organizations and their branches," and "places of worship." Merely mentioning "religions" and "places of worship" creates confusion regarding the various levels of religious organization registration. Providing specific empirical examples of the types of inscriptions would enhance clarity.
Response 7: A brief clarification has been added (606-619)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAllow me to go through my analysis in topics:
- I don't see the need to isolate section 2 when it is only two paragraphs long.
- It is necessary to justify the reason for specifically comparing these two countries and to methodologically explain their comparability, demonstrating clear and objective criteria for a comparative analysis. The article should present a possible state of the art of comparisons between these two countries in the past. If there are no relevant ones, this should be mentioned.
- The contributions of Alfred Stepan, Rajeev Bhargava, and Norman Doe about the different types of state-church relationship and their way of regulating religious diversity might be helpful. A recent article published in the journal Religions makes this connection between the church-state relationship and religious/cultural diversity (Secularization in Europe: Causes, Consequences, and Cultural Diversity). In addition, the works of Monika Wohlrab-Sahr and Marian Burchardt on secularity can be useful. In particular, the idea of secularity for the sake of managing religious diversity.
- What is the theoretical background at the heart of this article? Secularization? Secularism? Secularism? Secularism? This needs to be clear and integrated into the discussion.
- Two or three graphs on the composition of religious universes would probably help to give the reader a better understanding of the religious reality in each country. This is important because it is the background to this work.
- If the author wants to break with state-centric approaches, I would suggest not giving them so much space in this article. S/He should situate the two countries within that framework, but move on to his original proposal.
- Most of the article is merely historical and descriptive, giving a tour of the socio-religious reality of the countries and a description of the legal framework relating to religion. There should be more room for reflection and a more qualitative and analytical approach. However, if this is the sole aim of the work, it should be made clearer. The authors states that s/he is going to make a comparative analysis of legal frameworks. Nevetheless, I don't think that more than half the article should be historical and legal analysis (at least up to section 5).
- A comparative analysis table would be useful for systematizing the differences and similarities between cases.
I'm going to choose the “Reconsider after major revision” option, because I think these changes I'm suggesting are more than just minor revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we appreciated your commitment and agreed with your suggestions, and we thank you for your valuable contribution. We have done our best to accept and implement your advice, placing the article more firmly in the context of the debates on secularisation and the relationship between state and religion, as requested, while at the same time taking care not to go too far in the use of signs. We hope that the revisions have made the article clearer, more circumscribed and complete.
Comment 1: I don't see the need to isolate section 2 when it is only two paragraphs long.
Response 1: The previous paragraph 2 on methodology has been integrated into the introduction (61); the current paragraph 2 (83) includes the theoretical framework
Comment 2: It is necessary to justify the reason for specifically comparing these two countries and to methodologically explain their comparability, demonstrating clear and objective criteria for a comparative analysis. The article should present a possible state of the art of comparisons between these two countries in the past. If there are no relevant ones, this should be mentioned.
Response 2: We made an effort to make the points of comparison clearer. We explain that this work is the product of a larger investigation (62), and the characteristics of both countries that make them comparable (145). We have not found bibliography that makes the same type of comparison that we propose, but we did find research that crosses political and religious identities in Argentina and Italy (67).
Comment 3, 4 and 5:
- The contributions of Alfred Stepan, Rajeev Bhargava, and Norman Doe about the different types of state-church relationship and their way of regulating religious diversity might be helpful. A recent article published in the journal Religions makes this connection between the church-state relationship and religious/cultural diversity (Secularization in Europe: Causes, Consequences, and Cultural Diversity). In addition, the works of Monika Wohlrab-Sahr and Marian Burchardt on secularity can be useful. In particular, the idea of secularity for the sake of managing religious diversity.
- What is the theoretical background at the heart of this article? Secularization? Secularism? Secularism? Secularism? This needs to be clear and integrated into the discussion.
- If the author wants to break with state-centric approaches, I would suggest not giving them so much space in this article. S/He should situate the two countries within that framework, but move on to his original proposal.
Response 3, 4 and 5: Paragraph 2 (83) is now entirely devoted to the theoretical framework, dealing with the debate on secularisation and state-religion relations; an attempt has been made to better explain the theoretical position and objectives of this contribution, both in paragraph 2. and through ad hoc insertions in the introduction and conclusions
Comment 6: Two or three graphs on the composition of religious universes would probably help to give the reader a better understanding of the religious reality in each country. This is important because it is the background to this work.
Response 6: The composition of the religious universe of each country is presented in paragraph 3. We also include this data in the table suggested in comment 8.
Comment 7: Most of the article is merely historical and descriptive, giving a tour of the socio-religious reality of the countries and a description of the legal framework relating to religion. There should be more room for reflection and a more qualitative and analytical approach. However, if this is the sole aim of the work, it should be made clearer. The authors states that s/he is going to make a comparative analysis of legal frameworks. Nevetheless, I don't think that more than half the article should be historical and legal analysis (at least up to section 5).
Response 7: As the article aims to compare the legal frameworks, we consider that the historical process that gives rise to them is important. In view of the commentary we seek to highlight this objective more clearly in the text and the conclusions.
Comment 8: A comparative analysis table would be useful for systematizing the differences and similarities between cases.
Response 8: A summary table of the main points of comparison was added to the conclusions (995), which were substantiated with more precise expressions and a final paragraph (1039).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have nothing to add. The author(s) made all the revisions requested and made every effort to satisfy my comments.
