logo czasopisma

Articles

Vol. 54 No. 1 (2025): Law and Social Bonds nr 1 (54) 2025

Remnants of Religious Law in Contemporary Law

Submitted
26 January 2025
Published
09-05-2025

Abstract

Religion and law mutually interpenetrated and influenced each other both in the early stages of the formation of society and in the further processes of its development. It is impossible to say clearly which of them developed earlier, or which had a greater influence on the contemporary form of the other. At present, the relationship between law and religion is rarely discussed. The dominant view proclaiming the secularization of law, while undoubtedly justified, seems to overlook the religious origins of many contemporary purportedly secular lega institutions, such as the principle of equality before the law, social policy, parental authority or posthumous protection of personal rights. It seems that departing from the religious justification of legal institutions is the right solution, which push legal sciences to seek explanations of the functioning of legal institutions. The aim of this paper is to show that law and religion mutually interpenetrated during the period of creation of their final forms, which resulted in the popularization of legal institutions derived from religious norms. This facilitates the creation (or denotation) of legally protected values ​​and the search for their scientific (non-religious) foundations.

References

  1. Allalyev Ruslan, „Religious origins of the rule of law conception in the United States” Amazonia Investiga, 7 (2018): 212-217.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Bengoetxea Joxerramon, „Legal institutions and the comparison of legal cultures” Oñati Socio-Legal Series, nr 6 (2022): 1647-1673. Doi.ORG/10.35295/OSLS.IISL /0000-0000-0000-1361.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Berger Peter, Thomas Luckman, Społeczne tworzenie rzeczywistości. Warszawa: PWN, 2010.
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Berman Harold, „Religious Luckman Foundations of Law in the West. An Historical Perspective”, Journal of Law and Religion, nr 1 (1991): 3-43. DOI:10.2307/1051071.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Berman Joshua, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Biblia. https://biblia.deon.pl/rozdzial.php?id=102.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Bojarski Władysław, „Czy homo religious?: geneza religijna kodeksów praw antycznych” Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Historia, nr 31 (1999): 7-12.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Borucka-Arctowa Maria, Świadomość prawna a planowe zmiany społeczne. Wrocław: PAN, 1981.
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Broda Marian, „II. European civilization, the sacrality and secularity: Between sacrum and prophanum: Authority, knowledge, Democracy” LIMES: Cultural Regionalistics, nr 2 (2009): 116-125. Doi: 10.3846/2029-0187.2009.2.116-125.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Bront Jerzy, Barbara Nowacka, Różnorodność związków małżeńskich na świecie. Krynica Morska: Laterna, 2008.
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Burgoński Piotr, „Modele relacji między religią i polityką”, [w:] Religia i polityka. Zarys problematyki, red. Piotr Burgoński, Michał Gierycz. 216-239. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa, 2014.
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Cochrane Susan, „Children as By-products, Investment Goods and Consumer Goods: A Review of Some Micro-economic Models of Fertility” Population Studies, nr 3 (1975): 373-390. Doi: 10.1080/00324728.1975.10412706.
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Diertrich Frank, „Critical Reflection and the Limits of Parental Authority” Journal of Applied Philosophy, nr 4 (2022): 562-580. Doi: 10.1111/japp.12555.
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Durkheim Émile, Elementarne formy życia religijnego: system totemiczny w Australii. Warszawa: PWN, 1990.
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Echrlich Eugen, Żywe prawo ludów Bukowiny. https://jbc.bj.uj.edu.pl/Content/368030/PDF/NDIGCZAS017172_1912_005.pdf.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Eliade Mircea, The sacred and the profane. The nature of religion. Orlando: Harcourt, 1987.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Grief Avner, Guido Tabellini, „The Clan and the Corporation: Sustaining Cooperation in China and Europe” Journal of Comparative Economics, nr 1 (2015): 1-35. Doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2016.12.003.
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Hacker Daphna, „The rights of the dead through the prism of Israeli succession disputes” International Journal of Law in Context, nr 3 (2015): 40-58. Doi:10.1017/S1744552314000354.
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Hill Peter, The Ideological Origins of the Rule of Law. sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3166294.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Iwicka Renata, Źródła klasycznej demonologii japońskiej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2018.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Jakimowicz-Shah Marta, Andrzej Jakimowicz, Mitologia indyjska. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1982.
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Johansson Therese, Joakim Hjältén, Johnny de Jong, Henrik von Stedingk, „Environmental considerations from legislation and certification in managed forest stands: A review of their importance for biodiversity” Forest Ecology and Management, 303 (2013): 98-112. Doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.04.012.
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Kieniewicz Jan, Historia Indii. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1980.
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Koszowski Maciej, Dwadzieścia osiem wykładów ze wstępu do prawoznawstwa. Warszawa: Wyd. CM, 2019.
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Kquofi Steve, „Degradation of aesthetic aspects of the natural environment: a case of Accra, Ghana” International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, nr 1 (2011): 71-79.
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Le Brass Gabriel, „Sociologie religieuse et science des religions” Archives de Sociologie des Religions, nr 1 (1956): 3-17.
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Litewski Wiesław, Prawo Rzymskie Prywatne. Warszawa: PWN, 2003.
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Löytömäki Stiina, Law and the Politics of Memory. Confronting the Past. Oxon-Nowy Jork: Routledge, 2014.
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Macready John, Hannah Arendt and the fragility of human dignity. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2018.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Makarewicz Juliusz, Wstęp do filozofii prawa karnego. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009.
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Maru Yoseph, Aster Gebrekirstos, Getahun Haile, „Indigenous ways of environmental protection in Gedeo community, Southern Ethiopia. A socio-ecologicalperspective” Cogent Food & Agriculture, 6 (2020): 1-26. Doi: 10.1080/23311932.2020.1766732.
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Młynarska-Sobaczewska Anna, „Trzy wymiary prywatności. Sfera prywatna i publiczna we współczesnym prawie i teorii społecznej” Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego, nr 1 (2013): 33-52. Doi: 10.15804/ppk.2013.01.02.
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Montgomery Jonathan, „Children as property?” The Modern Law Review, nr 3 (1988): 323-342. Doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1988.tb01759.x.
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Najman Michał, „Determinants of the Object of Protection of the Crime of Desecration of a Corpse and a Grave and Defamation of a Deceased Person”, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem, nr 3 (2021): 241-254. Doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.483.
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Najman Michał, „Jak rozumieć godność w prawie” Przegląd Prawa i Administracji, t. CXXVII (2021): 95-113. Doi:10.19195/0137-1134.127.6.
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Nanji Amin, Samuel French, „Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis” Diet and Disease, 23 (1985): 681-683. Doi:10.3390/ijerph6092417.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Nongbri Brent, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Nowacka Weronika, „Gdzie kończy się sacrum a zaczyna profanum. Antropologiczna analiza problemu na przykładzie przestrzeni cmentarnej” Pracownia kultury, 9 (2016). www.laboratoriumkultury.us.edu.pl/?p=31244.
    View in Google Scholar
  39. Oosten Jarich, „Cultural Anthropological Approaches” Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, 2 (1985): 351-384. doi.org/10.1515/9783110815818.351.
    View in Google Scholar
  40. Partridge Ernest, „Posthumous Interests and Posthumous Respect” Ethics, 2 (1981): 243-264.
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Plavoet Veerle, „The attribution of limited legal personality to nonhuman species” Journal of Animal Ethics, 1 (2020): 49-58. Doi:10.5406/janimalethics.10.1.0049.
    View in Google Scholar
  42. Popiołek Piotr, „Czy chrześcijanin powinien być bogaty?” Magazyn Kontakt, 29 grudnia 2019. https://magazynkontakt.pl/czy-chrzescijanin-powinien-byc-bogaty/.
    View in Google Scholar
  43. Purvis Dara, „The Origin of Parental Rights: Labor, Intent, and Fathers” Florida State University Review, (2014): 645-696. Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2115696.
    View in Google Scholar
  44. Romejko Adam, „Religia a troska o ochronę środowiska naturalnego” Studia Gdańskie, t. XII (2017): 247-261.
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Russell Bertrand, „On denoting” Mind, Vol. CXIV (2005): 873-887.
    View in Google Scholar
  46. Skory Maciej, „Osobowość prawna w sferze stosunków gospodarczych – wybrane zagadnienia konstrukcyjne”, [w:] Osobowość prawna jako przesłanka wykonywania konstytucyjnych wolności i praw, ed. Michał Bernaczyk, Mariusz Jabłoński. 161-178. Wrocław: Prace Naukowe Wydziału Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2019. DOI: 10.34616/23.19.151.
    View in Google Scholar
  47. Stephenson Barry, Ritual. A very short introduction, Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
    View in Google Scholar
  48. Stępień Martyna, „Istota władzy rodzicielskiej” Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne, 27 (2019): 61-71. DOI: 10.19195/1733-5779.27.4.
    View in Google Scholar
  49. Strang Veronica, „Elemental Powers: Water Beings, Nature Worship, and Long-Term Trajectories in Human-environmental Relations” Kritisketnografi. Swedish Journal of Anthropology, 2 (2021): 15-34. Doi:10.33063/diva-463871.
    View in Google Scholar
  50. Vered Ronit, „Prescribing pork in Israel” Gastronomica, 3 (2010): 19-22. DOI:10.1525/gfc.2010.10.3.19.
    View in Google Scholar
  51. Vial-Dumas Manuel, „Parents, Children, and Law” Journal of Family History, 4 (2014): 307-329. DOI:10.1177/0363199014554862.
    View in Google Scholar
  52. Wesoły Waldemar, „Dlaczego Kościół broni własności prywatnej?” Studia Gdańskie, t. XXVII (2010): 232-344.
    View in Google Scholar
  53. Whitehouse Harvey, „Modes of religiosity: towards a cognitive explanation of the sociopolitical dynamics of religion” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, (3/4 (2002): 293-315. Doi: 10.17192/mjr.2007.11.3623.
    View in Google Scholar
  54. Woodhouse Barbara, „Who Owns the Child?” William & Mary Law Review, 33 (1992): 995-1122.
    View in Google Scholar
  55. Zhao Bao, „Posthumous Reputation and Posthumous Privacy in China: The Dead, the Law, and Social Transition” Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 1 (2014): 270-352.
    View in Google Scholar
  56. Ziembiński Zygmunt, Sprawiedliwość społeczna jako pojęcie prawne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 1996.
    View in Google Scholar
  57. Zirk-Sadowski Marek, Wprowadzenie do filozofii prawa. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwers, 2021.
    View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.