Nationalism in the Judicialization and Culturalization of Religion: The Case of Religious Education in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article adequately addresses what it proposes, raising a politically and socially very important subject for debate and carrying out a very pertinent scientific approach, with good foundations in recent literature on the subject. The focus on the judicialization and culturalization of religion is very pertinent and clearly presented and addressed. The descriptive style of the Greek situation (and even the American and Italian case) is combined with reflective (although less abundant) discourse on the wider significance of the problem, of which the Greek case may be exemplary. I have no special observations to make.

Author Response

no changes required; my thanks for the positive feedback

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I am sympathetic to this essay. But I would like to make a few remarks.

1. I think the author should give further evidence that intense judicialization over religious education is a “new” phenomenon (line 6, 34 etc.), drop this thesis or qualify it more precisely. One might argue that there is nothing particularly “new” about this issue; that indeed since Ancient Greece, as Plato’s Republic indicates, this has somehow occurred even if the contemporary concept of “court” may not be easily applicable to Plato’s time. In other words, I am not convinced that intense judicialization over religious education is a properly contemporary or “late twentieth and early twenty-first century” phenomenon (line 63). I tend to think that this has taken place throughout history and in all sorts of distinct contexts.

2. I am not convinced that “politicized religion” only became “a cornerstone of [Greece’s] national collective identity” in the 19^th century (113-114). I mean: Where and when was “religion” not “politicized”? The very articulation and first propagation of the Old Testament were probably political gestures that played a crucial role for Ancient Jewish communities.

3. I interpret that the core dispute of the paper is on whether religion has been culturalized. The paper’s core thesis, I believe, is that religion has been culturalized in contemporary Greece,  Italy and in the USA. However, the very term, “religion” and others (e.g., “religious”, “culture”, “culturalization”, etc.) are used throughout the paper in a vague way. That makes the very formulation of the core dispute tackled in the paper and its core thesis likewise very loose. I think the author should articulate this dispute and thesis more precisely. To do that is not a yet very easy task. The reason is that the author appears to aim to remain neutral regarding at least two other disputes: (a) the one over the very definition of “religion” and (b) the one on who or what (e.g., the courts) should be allowed to define “religion”. Given this neutrality, it is hard to overcome the aforementioned looseness. The problem is that if such looseness is not overcome, one might claim that the paper’s aforementioned core thesis is excessively vague and ultimately depends on a non-neutral perspective on (a) and (b) to become truly informative.

4. Indeed, I am not convinced that the author can remain neutral on (a) and (b); the very claim that religion has been culturalized in Greece, Italy and the USA depends on whether one is willing to use “culture” in the sense of “legally acceptable”, “religion” in the sense of “legally unacceptable” or some other kind of sense (lines 580-583).  

5. The distinct and somehow weaker thesis that — at least in my view — the essay truly manages to back up runs as follows: those who have had conservative stances on (a) and (b) have succeeded to convey their interests through judicial means in contemporary Greece, Italy and the USA.

6. I think the technical concept of “culturalization of religion” (line 13) should be defined in the very abstract and in the introduction of the paper; not merely quite broadly tackled around lines 497-537.

7. I think the author (line 148) correctly and in an interesting fashion indicates that the term “prevailing” can be read either as a descriptive or as a prescriptive concept within the context of Greek Constitution. The problem is that, as indicated above, the same issue affects varied terms adopted in the essay; in particular “religion”, “religious”, “culture”, “culturalization” etc. That is: should these terms be read within the essay’s context descriptively or prescriptively?

8. A minor point is that the section called “Populist Constitutionalism?” and the other ones after it were all numbered “4”.  That seems to be a mistake that can be easily corrected.

9. I also would like to acknowledge that I am not the most qualified person to tackle Section 3 and the “Populist Constitutionalism?” section. My knowledge regarding the particularities of contemporary Greek politics is very limited. So, perhaps, a referee who is specialized in this politics should also be invited to address this paper.

10. Lastly, when dealing with the dispute on whether religion has been culturalized, Brazil is another country the author may want to approach (that is, in a future occasion; I do not think the author has the space to do that in this essay). It seems to me that varied points the author makes about Greece, Italy and the USA are likewise applicable to Brazil.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing. Please see my responses point-by-point below; and my thanks to you too for your feedback! I believe my relevant changes to the text have much improved it…

 

1. I have described the developments examined in the text as an ‘intense judicialization’ of the Greek religious education (RE) regime because six high court (Greek Supreme Court) cases within five years, one ECtHR case and one pending ECtHR case all on the Greek RE regime – so seven in total, is rather unprecedented in terms of the ‘intensity’ of the judicialization. The text does not claim that judicialization of religious education in Greece in general is new. I have edited the relevant lines to draw more emphasis to the specific point I’m making.

 

2. Here I am citing Manitakis in his discussion of the role of religion (mythologized and real) in the Greek revolution in the early 19^th This article is clearly focused on the contemporary Greek context and on the modern Greek state established in the aftermath of the Greek revolution; I am not suggesting that the religion in Greek antiquity is not politicized nor religion during the Byzantine Empire or during Ottoman rule. But in the context of a discussion of the modern Greek state established after that 19^th c. Greek revolution, I believe the reader understands that the national collective identity to which I refer as that of modern Greece, but in any case I add ‘modern’ to the text in hopes this is more clear.

 

3. Indeed, this problem is not easily resolved because, indeed, I do not even try to define religion in this text. I have added a footnote (footnote no.2) to this effect, and have expanded the conclusion accordingly. I know my efforts here will fall short of the expectations of some readers, but I personally believe that a certain ‘grey area’ necessarily surrounds these topics. But I hope my efforts will satisfy the reviewer.

 

4. I wholly agree with this point and simply need to make explicit the fact that I do not take understandings of religion or of culture for granted: we use imperfect terms and phrases to describe fluid and contested notions and developments. I have edited the text at this point in hopes this sufficiently addresses this point.

 

5. [no response required]

 

6. I agree and have now tended to this; I do hope these additions to the text quell the reviewer’s legitimate concerns.

 

7. I trust this concern has been addressed by the aforementioned edits to the text.

 

8. Point appreciated – and problem corrected!

 

9. Fair enough…

 

10. Indeed, the Brazilian case is fascinating, and I’ll keep this point in mind for future work where space might allow its exploration!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper „Nationalism, populist constitutionalism, and religious education in the Greek context“ problematizes a very interesting topic of religion in the broader context. As an example, the author uses Religious Education in Greek. Based on the debate about Religious Educaton in Greek schools, the author opens up questions about the civil rights of minorities but also the civil rights of the majority, as well as the role of the Greek Orthodox Church. These questions are not problematized but they are used as examples. Some examples from Greek judicial practice the author uses as examples of other detected problems – judicialization of religion and culturalization of religion. The most valuable part of the article is an indication of the connection between those two phenomena. The intention of the author is interesting and it opens problems that are relevant for scientific debate as well as for the function of society. Gaaps of the article may be recognized in too many opened questions and many generalizations on account of the accuracy and focus, which is visible in a dispersion of argumentation. The author identifies problems of nationalism in Greek Religious Education. Critically and constructively the author introduced the situation in Greek but it is hard in the article to notice recommendations for future research.

The content of the article does not match the title very well. Concepts of nationalism and populist constitutionalism, are not sufficiently explained in the context of the keywords. Six chapters („The judicialization of politics and religion in the case of Greek religious education“; „The contested constitutional framework for the religious education regime“; „From parliament to courts…“; „Populist constitutionalism?“; „Judicialization of religion in broader context“; „The ‘culturalization’ of religion“) maby should be arranged differently. In the beginning, it will be useful to define concepts of judicialization of religion and culturalization of religion in some broader context. After that, the Greek context can be used as a specific example. In such a set frame, a chapter on populist constitutionalism (together with a short explanation of the meaning of nationalism in the Greek context) precedes the concrete example of the judicialization of politics and religion in the case of Greek religious education.

The recommendation for the author will be that he/she change the title of the article, rearrange the structure, and focus on the problem of the connection between the judicialization of religion and the culturalization of religion supported by literature from that area. Such a refined article would be suitable for a special issue „Nationalism and Religious Identities“, although „nationalism“ as a keyword is not mentioned in the title itself.

Although the article's content is interesting, its structure does not follow the suggested parts of articles in the Journal. The structure of the paper „Nationalism, populist constitutionalism, and religious education in the Greek context“ includes an abstract, keywords, an introduction, six parts, and conclusions. Please, notice that chapter numbering is incorrect - chapter number 4. appears five times. Also, incoherency in the quotation is visible in the paper.

The paper generally summarizes the existing literature on the topic of intense political debate of Religious Education in Greece and a focal point of party politics in the Greek context, but the literature about the broader context could be more represented.

The reference list is organized alphabetically but there are some discrepancies (for example lines 656-659).

Cited publications are relevant to the topic of the paper but there are no references to some mentioned sources (Council of State (2018, 2018, 2019, 2019, 2022, and 2023); European Court of Human Rights (Papageorgiou v. 37 Greece, 2018); the Constitution of Greece; The 1991 curriculum introduced by government circular no. 133/4-9-199; European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; Decisions 312 660/2018, 926/2018, 1749/2019, and 1750/2019; Grand Chamber hearing, Lautsi v. Italy, 2011, para.15; Lautsi 2011, para 67…also CoS de-522 cision 1750/2019, paragraphs 13 and 15; Roy 2013; Sullivan 2005).

Also in the References list, there are some authors whose references are not in the article or are inappropriately cited (for example lines 624-628; 637, and 670).

The references are not quoted according to journal instructions for authors. Please pay attention to the capital letters in the title of the article.

Author Response

- I am grateful for the valuable feedback and hope my edits in response are found to strengthen the text. Your comments are not as easily addressed point-by-point, thus I have turned points in your comments to bold and have dispersed my responses in bold text throughout your comments.

 

The paper „Nationalism, populist constitutionalism, and religious education in the Greek context“ problematizes a very interesting topic of religion in the broader context. As an example, the author uses Religious Education in Greek. Based on the debate about Religious Educaton in Greek schools, the author opens up questions about the civil rights of minorities but also the civil rights of the majority, as well as the role of the Greek Orthodox Church. These questions are not problematized but they are used as examples. Some examples from Greek judicial practice the author uses as examples of other detected problems – judicialization of religion and culturalization of religion. The most valuable part of the article is an indication of the connection between those two phenomena. The intention of the author is interesting and it opens problems that are relevant for scientific debate as well as for the function of society. Gaaps of the article may be recognized in too many opened questions and many generalizations on account of the accuracy and focus, which is visible in a dispersion of argumentation. The author identifies problems of nationalism in Greek Religious Education. Critically and constructively the author introduced the situation in Greek but it is hard in the article to notice recommendations for future research.

 

I wholly agree that too many questions were opened in this text, and taken together with points you make below, this feedback led to a decluttering, a restructuring, and a streamlining according to fewer main themes. I hope the changes along these lines are conspicuous to you and sufficient to resolve this problem.

 

The content of the article does not match the title very well. Concepts of nationalism and populist constitutionalism, are not sufficiently explained in the context of the keywords. Six chapters („The judicialization of politics and religion in the case of Greek religious education“; „The contested constitutional framework for the religious education regime“; „From parliament to courts…“; „Populist constitutionalism?“; „Judicialization of religion in broader context“; „The ‘culturalization’ of religion“) maby should be arranged differently. In the beginning, it will be useful to define concepts of judicialization of religion and culturalization of religion in some broader context [done!]. After that, the Greek context can be used as a specific example. In such a set frame, a chapter on populist constitutionalism (together with a short explanation of the meaning of nationalism in the Greek context) precedes the concrete example of the judicialization of politics and religion in the case of Greek religious education.

The recommendation for the author will be that he/she change the title of the article [agreed! I hope the revised version is better? I think the ‘Nationalism in’ could, conceivably, be dropped though I have kept it for now for better fit with the rest of the texts in the special issue. I welcome your feedback], rearrange the structure, and focus on the problem of the connection between the judicialization of religion and the culturalization of religion supported by literature from that area. Such a refined article would be suitable for a special issue „Nationalism and Religious Identities“, although „nationalism“ as a keyword is not mentioned in the title itself.

Although the article's content is interesting, its structure does not follow the suggested parts of articles in the Journal. The structure of the paper „Nationalism, populist constitutionalism, and religious education in the Greek context“ includes an abstract, keywords, an introduction, six parts, and conclusions. Please, notice that chapter numbering is incorrect - chapter number 4. appears five times. Also, incoherency in the quotation is visible in the paper. [is the revised version sufficently in line with the Journal’s practices?]

The paper generally summarizes the existing literature on the topic of intense political debate of Religious Education in Greece and a focal point of party politics in the Greek context, but the literature about the broader context could be more represented. [I am sorry but I’m not sure I understand this point: is it literature on the broader context of religion and politics in Greece which should be added? Or about the politicization of RE in Greece? Or party politics generally in Greece? Happy to add literature on any or all of this!]

The reference list is organized alphabetically but there are some discrepancies (for example lines 656-659). [corrected!]

Cited publications are relevant to the topic of the paper but there are no references to some mentioned sources (Council of State (2018, 2018, 2019, 2019, 2022, and 2023); European Court of Human Rights (Papageorgiou v. 37 Greece, 2018); the Constitution of Greece; The 1991 curriculum introduced by government circular no. 133/4-9-199; European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; Decisions 312 660/2018, 926/2018, 1749/2019, and 1750/2019; Grand Chamber hearing, Lautsi v. Italy, 2011, para.15; Lautsi 2011, para 67…also CoS de-522 cision 1750/2019, paragraphs 13 and 15; Roy 2013; Sullivan 2005). [I struggled to find reliable sources for the Greek Council of State cases; the Council of State website seems to set a limit on number of cases one can access, and once I reached that limit, I was unable to access the site again. The links I have provided (NOTE: please hover over the listings in the bibliography to access the links) do not have such limits, but they are secondary links and, in one case, lead only to a (albeit reliable) summary of the case in question. I hope these links will be deemed sufficient for the purpose]

Also in the References list, there are some authors whose references are not in the article or are inappropriately cited (for example lines 624-628; 637, and 670). [I don’t have the version with the lines; I found only one discrepency (a citation of Koukounaras 2013 which is not listed in the references; I removed the citation as it is no longer as relevant). The Sullivan/Fallers Sullivan citation might have caused confusion; I have reordered in the list as ‘Sullivan’. If I could have the version submitted with the lines you cite, I will check and correct! But the other missing information, re cases etc. is a serious problem which I have now corrected.]

The references are not quoted according to journal instructions for authors. Please pay attention to the capital letters in the title of the article. [I hope it’s correct now?!]

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the author offered plausible replies to my remarks and made appropriate changes  in the article.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author of the manuscript Nationalism, Populist Constitutionalism, and Religious Education in the Greek Context improved the manuscript according to some instructions. Firstly, the author changed the title of the manuscript to be more appropriate. The title Nationalism in the Judicialization and Culturalization of Religion: The Case of Religious Education in Greece better corresponds to the content.

 

Secondly, the author critically and constructively introduced the situation in Greece and concluded that future research is welcome, especially on the judicial culturalization of religion.

According to instructions, the author rearranges the chapters. His/Her manuscript is better structured, and keywords are better connected.

 

The revised manuscript contains an abstract, keywords, an introduction (but no title), two chapters, and a conclusion. Two main chapters correspond with keywords: judicialization of religion, and culturalization of religion.

 

The inconsistency in a citation is still present in the manuscript. For instance:

line 277 (Markoviti 2018)

line 427 (Davis 2003: 657)

 

Why the references are incorporated in the text and also below the text?

Also, the author uses two types of quotation marks. For instance:

line 17 ‘culture’

line 380 “culture”

 

The literature about the broader context is better represented.

Please pay attention to the consistent font of the letters in the text!

The reference list is organized alphabetically but references are not quoted according to Journal instructions for authors, especially websites/online resources.

 

Where in the manuscript are the citations of this author?

Halmai, G (2018) ‘Is there such thing as “populist constitutionalism”? : the case of Hungary’,  Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 323-339.

Although the author has been making some improvements in the manuscript, there is still a need for them, especially in the editing.

Author Response

Thank you again for your feedback! please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has improved the manuscript according to recommendations.

The font of the letters in the manuscript may be different because of Mac and PC differences.

Should it be a double quotation in all three words (culture, religion, traditional) in part of the manuscript (lines 409-411) according to the authors' explanation of double quotations?

Avi Astor and Damon Mayrl (2020: 210) explain what is distinctive about culturalized religion ‘is that it is perceived or portrayed as “culture” rather than “religion”, despite its ongoing links to ‘traditional’ religious forms’ (Astor and Mayrl 2020: 210).

The manuscript is ready for further editing.