Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
This article analyzes a Finnish criminal court process concerning a spattering of blood on a mosque. Initially ruled as a religious insult, the charge was eventually dropped on the grounds that the Islamic community in question did not have the proper legal personality. The article utilizes a non-normative discursive perspective to analyze the construction of ‘sacredness’ and the category of ‘religion’ in the legal process. First, it is argued that several officials were influenced by the prevailing discourses on religion and blood, as well as the meaning of ‘sacred,’ to the point where they contradicted the prevalent legalistic discourse. Second, the legalistic discourse observed in the final ruling demonstrates how the prohibition of religious insult is part of the Finnish association-oriented model for managing a society perceived as religiously diverse.
Journal of Religion in Europe – Brill
Published: Oct 6, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.