{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015613382899628252, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.982222222222222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The expression of religious identities and the control of public space

To what extent may an historic nation impress its religious identity on the public space of its society? For example, does it have a right to ban the wearing of hijabs in schools, to insist on the display of crucifixes in school classrooms, or to ban the construction of minarets? My aim in this article is to critically examine the answers which liberal nationalism gives to these questions, focusing in particular on David Miller’s version of this theory. His key claim is that the religion associated with the historic nation may legitimately be given a predominant place in public space. After outlining the principal elements of Miller’s position, I shall criticise the general principle on which it is based, before challenging his views on several particular issues. My conclusion will be that, whilst the historic nation has the right to express its religious identity in the public space of its society to some degree, this right is significantly more constrained than Miller believes. Constraints are derived, in particular, from consideration of the particular nature of different kinds of public space, and consideration of what people need from such spaces, including the need for spaces in which they can express themselves and in which they can feel at home.