Abstract
Religion has now taken the centre stage of the public debate worldwide. It is frequently identified as both the cause of large-scale global conflicts and a main source of transnational solidarity. Over the last decades, however, there has been a decrease of religious people active in devout practices and an increase of religious nones and their variants (hard and soft atheists, agnostics, rationalists, humanists, secularists). This raises a number of questions as to when, where, and how the groups of atheists should engage with religious issues and the legal degree to which such engagement implies becoming ‘religion-like’. This is even more evident in contexts where the model for managing the State-religion relationship and even freedom of religion are characterised by overt or implicit endorsements towards traditional confessions that, as such, enjoy special protected legal status. One of the most prominent examples of that is given by the Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics (Unione degli Atei e degli Agnostici Razionalisti), which in the last years has launched judicial review proceedings against what they considered Italy’s limited ex parte Ecclesiae secularism. In this manner, and even with a tiny minority position, today’s Italian militant atheism is helping to shed light on the contradictions of the biased pro-religion interpretations of Italy’s constitutional order, including the supreme principle of secularism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See ex purimis: the U.S. Supreme Court, McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005); the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Kaufman v. McCaughtry, August 19, 2005, no. 04-1914; Supreme Court of Canada, Mouvement laïque québécois vs. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 3; Canada Federal Court of Appeal, Church of Atheism of Central Canada vs. Minister of National Revenue, 2019 FCA 296, 2019, 29, 11; Supreme Court of Canada, Syndicat Northcrest v. Amseleum, [2004] 2 SCR 551. On the relation between the definition of religion and atheistic organisations see also: Dworkin 2013; Courtney 2016; Davis 2005; Tribe 1978, 827–28; Courtney 1998; Laneve 2020.
- 2.
Grand Chamber, 18 March 2011 (application No. 30814/06).
- 3.
See Annicchino 2011.
- 4.
15 January 2013 (applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10 and 36516/10).
- 5.
Grand Chamber, 1 July 2014 (application No. 43835/11).
- 6.
In this sense also see: ECtHR: Dakir vs. Belgium, 11 July 2017 (application No. 4619/12); Belkacemi and Oussar vs. Belgium, 11 July 2017 (application No. 37798/13.
- 7.
- 8.
No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015-Decided June 26, 2015.
- 9.
The Supreme Court of the UK, 20 April 2018.
- 10.
Corte costituzionale, sent. 25 settembre 2019, n. 242.
- 11.
I refer to the principio supremo di laicità, as the Italian Constitutional court calls it. See infra, para. 7.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
As the Italian Constitutional Court stated in 1960 (No. 58). On this see Origone 1952, 417.
- 15.
The US’s Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005).
- 16.
On the 0,008 of taxes owed by natural persons, also known as IRPEF, see Alicino 2013b.
- 17.
Of course, this picture changes in accordance with the socio-demographic characteristics of the population, or the different contexts where people live.
- 18.
It is interesting to note that the UK’s 2010 Equality Act expressly states, ‘Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion. Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief’.
- 19.
In Germany, for example, the status of non-denominational organisations is established in the Constitution. In particular, Article 140 of the Grundgesetz states that associations pursuing philosophical ideology have the same status as religious groups. In other words, both religious groups and philosophical organisations (Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft, which includes humanistic and atheistic associations) may have the status of public law corporations (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, also known as KdÖR). It also means that each Lander-State is entitled to grant the KdÖR to atheistic associations that, in this way, may benefit some distinct rights against generally applicable laws. Thanks to such equal legal treatment between religious denominations and philosophical organisations, the Land of Lower Saxony, for instance, has signed an agreement with the Freireligiösen Landesgemeinschaft Niedersachsen, a local atheistic association.
- 20.
See article 9 ECHR, which ‘includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in a community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.’ At the same time, the ECHR declares that the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure right to education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’ (article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR).
- 21.
Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
- 22.
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJEU L-304/12, Article 10.1(b). In this vein, it is also important to note that the EU’s Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, instructions to discriminate, and victimisation on grounds of religion or belief. On this see European Court of Justice, Judgment No. 257/2018, in Case C-414/16, Vera Egenberger v. Evangelisches Werk fur Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V., where the European Court stated that the right of autonomy of Churches and the right of workers must be the subject of an assessment aimed to ensure a fair balance between them.
- 23.
Corte costituzionale, sent. 13 luglio 1960, n. 58 (translation mine).
- 24.
- 25.
Article 402–406 of the 1930 Italian Penal Code.
- 26.
Article 724 of the 1930 Italian Penal Code. See Corte costituzionale, sent. 18 ottobre 1995, n. 440.
- 27.
This procedure is provided by Article 138 of the Constitution.
- 28.
Concerning the recent relationships between the State and the Catholic Church, on 18 February 1984, the State and the Holy See signed an agreement, which was then ratified by the law of the Italian Parliament (No. 121/1985). This law is an atypical sui generis legislation because, once it enters into force, it can be amended only on the basis of a new agreement between the State and the Church: no amendment based on a unilateral legislation made by the Parliament is possible. The same can be said about the legislative acts approving intese: they can only be changed via additional legislative acts that, in turn, must be based on further understandings between the State and confessions concerned.
- 29.
See Corte costituzionale, sent. 10 marzo 2016, n. 52. See also Alicino (2016, 4).
- 30.
See http://presidenza.governo.it/USRI/confessioni/intese_indice.html (last accessed 24 May 2019).
- 31.
According to the 1929 law, the Minister of Interior will take into consideration the assets of the denomination or religious entity that claims recognition. For example, he will take into account: (1) the number of the claimants’ members and how widespread they are in the Country; (2) the compatibility between the claimants’ statute and the main principles of the Italian legal system; (3) and the aim of the denomination that claims to be recognised by the State, an aim that has to be ‘prevalently’ of religion and worship.
- 32.
- 33.
In this sense, UAAR offers the ‘Debaptism Certificate,’ see https://www.uaar.it/laicita/sbattezzo/ (last 10 October May 2019), whose procedure has been partially validated by the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali), see https://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/1090502 (last accessed 27 May 2019). See also the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI). 1999. Decreto Generale, Disposizioni per la tu- tela del diritto alla buona fama e alla riservatezza. Prot. n. 1285/99, art. 2, par. 9.
- 34.
According to this system, all Italian taxpayers can participate to a sort of ‘poll’ to allocate 0.008 of their income tax (IRPEF) to the Catholic Church, the State, and confessions holding an intesa: they can participate by signing under ‘one of the others’ in the tax form. The entire fund (i.e. the overall amount of 0.008 of the IRPEF) will then be divided proportionally among the choices selected by the taxpayer who signed to give 0.008 of all taxes to specific institutions (e.g. the Catholic Church, the State, one of the minority religions holding an intesa). In doing so, even the taxpayers who do not choose any denomination will end up funding one according to the selection made by those who have signed to give their taxes to a religious group. See Alicino (2013b).
- 35.
See the President of the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic, 1996. Atto protocollato DAGL 1/2.5/4430/23 e comunicato all’UAAR con lettera datata 20 febbraio 1996. See also Consiglio di Stato, Parere 29 ottobre 1997, n. 3048.
- 36.
TAR Lazio (sede di Roma), sent. del 5 novembre-31 dicembre 2008, n. 12539. Consiglio di Stato. Sent. 18 novembre 2011, n. 6083.
- 37.
Corte di cassazione, Sez. Un. civ., sent. 28 giugno 2013, n. 16305.
- 38.
Ibid.
- 39.
Ibid.
- 40.
Corte costituzionale, sent. 10 marzo 2016, n. 52.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
In particular, those of Articles 3, 8.1, 8.2, 19 and 20 of the Constitution.
- 43.
Corte costituzionale, sent. 10 marzo 2016, n. 52.
- 44.
Corte costituzionale, sent. 10 marzo 2016, n. 52, para. 5.2 conclusion on points of law (translation mine).
- 45.
Corte di Cassazione, Sez. I civ., n. 7893.
- 46.
Corte di Appello di Roma, 23 marzo 2020, n. 1869.
- 47.
In this same vein, see ECtHR, Sekmadienis Ltd. V. Lithuania, 30 January 2018 (application No. 69317/14).
- 48.
See above, n. 32.
- 49.
See, for example, the following ECtHR’s judgements, whose relative actions have been brought by UAAR: Pellegrini v. Italy, Application No. 30882/96, judgement 20 July 2001; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, Application No. 39128/05, judgement 20 October 2009; Lautsi v. Italy, Application No. 30814/06, judgement 3 November 2009, Lautsi and Others v. Italy (Grand Chamber), cit. At the end of the day, one of the main ambitions of the Italian atheists is ‘the concrete recognition of the supreme constitutional principle of secularism, especially with the reference of public schools and institutions, as well as the full equality before the law of all persons, regardless of their philosophical and religious beliefs.’ In this perspective, the current form of Italian atheism calls for the abolition of every privilege or benefit granted, in law or in fact, to any religion’ (article 3b of the UAAR’s Statute, which was approved during the national congress of 2 July 2006, translation mine).
References
Alicino, Francesco. 2013a. La legislazione sulla base di intesa. In I test delle religioni “altre” e degli ateismi. Bari: Cacucci.
———. 2013b. Un referendum sull’otto per mille? Riflessioni sulle fonti. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 33. https://www.statoechiese.it/images/uploads/articoli_pdf/alicino4.pdf?pdf=un-referendum-sullotto-per-mille-riflessioni-sulle-fonti. Last accessed 27 May 2019.
———. 2015. Freedom of expression, Laïcité and Islam in France: The tension between two different (universal) perspectives. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 27 (1): 51–75.
———. 2016. La bilateralità pattizia Stato-confessioni dopo la sentenza n. 52/2016 della Corte costituzionale. Osservatorio sulle fonti, 2. file:///Users/francescoalicino/Downloads/OSF_2_2016%20Alicino%20(3).pdf. Last accessed 10 Oct 2020.
———. 2018a. The Italian legal system and imams. A difficult relationship. In Imams in Western Europe. Developments, transformations, and institutional challenges, eds. Mohammed Hashas, Jan Jaap de Ruiter, and Niels Valdemar Vinding, with the collaboration of Khalid Hajj, 359–380. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
———. 2018b. Atheism and the principle of Laïcité in France. A shifting process of mutual adaptation. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 33. https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/statoechiese/article/view/10736. Last accessed 18 Oct 2020.
———. 2019. La libertà religiosa. In La Corte di Strasburgo, ed. Francesco Buffa and Maria Giuliana Civinini, 458–467. Rome: Questione giustizia., http://questionegiustizia.it/speciale/pdf/QG-Speciale_2019-1_65.pdf. Last accessed 10 Oct 2020.
Annicchino, Pasquale. 2011. Winning the battle by losing the war: The Lautsi case and the Holy Alliance between American Conservative Evangelicals, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican to Reshape European identity. Religion & Human Rights 6 (213): 215–218.
Arons, Ronald. 2008. Living without god: New directions for atheists, agnostics, secularists, and the undecided. Berkeley: Counterpoint Press.
Balazka, Dominik. 2020. Mapping religious Nones in 112 countries: An overview of European values study and world values survey data (1981–2020). Trento: Fondazione Bruno Kessler.
Bellini, Piero. 1985. L’ateismo nel sistema delle libertà fondamentali. Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica 1: 85–90.
Bettetini, Adrea. 2006. Commento all’art. 20 Cost. In Commentario alla Costituzione, ed. Bifulco Raffaele, Alfonso Celotto, and Marco Olivetti, 441–448. Torino: UTET.
Bibby, Reginal W. 1988. La religion à la carte: pauvreté et potentiel de la religion au Canada. Montréal: Fides.
Bouchard, Giorgio. 2004. Concordato e intese, ovvero un pluralismo imperfetto. Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica 1: 70.
Brown, Andrew. 20 January 2016. No religion is the new religion. The Guardian.
Cardia, Carlo. 2004. Concordato, intese, laicità dello Stato. Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica 1: 30.
Carnelutti, Francesco. 1951. Teoria generale del diritto. Roma: Soc. ed. del Foro italiano.
Casuscelli, Giuseppe. 2008. La rappresentanza e l’intesa. In Islam in Europa/Islam in Italia tra diritto e società, ed. Alessandro Ferrari, 285–322. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Colaianni, Nicola. 1990. Confessioni religiose e intese. Bari: Cacucci.
———. 2012. Diritto pubblico delle religioni. Eguaglianza e differenze nello Stato costituzionale. Bologna: Il Mulino.
———. 2013a. Laicità: finitezza degli ordini e governo delle differenze. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale» 39. http://www.statoechiese.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=643&Itemid=41. Last accessed 23 May 2019.
———. 2013b. Ateismo de combat e intesa con lo Stato. Rivista AIC. https://www.rivistaaic.it/it/rivista/ultimi-contributi-pubblicati/nicola-colaianni/ateismo-de-combat-e-intesa-con-lo-stato. Last accessed 18 Oct 2020.
———. 2020. Propaganda ateistica: laicità e divieto di discriminazione. Questione giustizia. https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/propaganda-ateistica-laicita-e-divieto-di-discriminazione_10-06-2020.php. Last accessed 18 Oct 2020.
Connaughton, Aidan. 2020. Religiously unaffiliated people more likely than those with a religion to lean left, accept homosexuality. Pew Research Center, September 28.
Crisafulli, Vezio. 1968. voce Fonti del diritto (dir. cost.). Enciclopedia del diritto XII: 948.
Croce, Marco. 2020. Opportune (e ovvie) precisazioni della Cassazione in tema di propaganda del non credere. Quaderni costituzionali 2: 401–404.
Crockett, Clayton. 1998. On the disorientation of the study of religion. In What is religion? Origins, definitions, and explanations, ed. Thomas Idinopulos and Wilson Courtney, 1–13. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.
Dalla Torre, Giuseppe. 2014. Ancora sulla laicità. Il contributo del diritto ecclesiastico e del diritto canonico. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale», 4. http://www.statoechiese.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=41. Last accessed 23 May 2019.
Davis, Derek H. 2005. Is atheism a religion? Recent Judicial perspectives on the constitutional meaning of “Religion”. Journal of Church and State 47 (4): 707–723.
Decaro Bonella, Carmela. 2013. Le questioni aperte: contesti e metodo. In Tradizioni religiose e tradizioni costituzionali. L’islam e l’Occidente, ed. Carmela Decaro Bonella, 34–55. Roma: Carocci.
Di Marzio, Paolo. 1999. L’art. 20 della Costituzione. Interpretazione analitica e sistematica. Torino: Giappichelli.
Drescher, Elizabeth. 2016. Choosing our religion. The spiritual lives of America’s none, 16–52. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald. 2013. Religion without God. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Epstein, Greg M. 2009. Good without God: What a billion nonreligious people do believe. New York: Harper Collins.
Ferrari, Silvio. 1993. Il Concordato salvato dagli infedeli. In Studi per la sistemazione delle fonti in materia ecclesiastica, ed. Tozzi Valerio, 127–158. Salerno: Edisud.
Ferrari, Alessandro. 2009a. De la politique à la technique: laïcité narrative et laïcité du droit. Pour une comparaison France/Italie. In Le droit ecclésiastique en Europe et à ses marges (XVIII-XX siècles), ed. Basdevant-Gaudemet Brigitte and Jankowiak François, 333–349. Leuven: Peeters.
———. 2009b. The Italian Accommodations. Liberal State and Religious freedom in the ‘Long Century’. In L’État canadien et la diversité culturelle et religieuse 1800–1914, ed. Derocher Lorraine, Claude Gélinas, Lebel-Grenier Sébastien, and Pierre C. Noël, 143–153. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Ferrari, Silvio. 2016. Religion between liberty and equality. Journal of Law, Religion and State 4 (2): 179–193.
Finocchiaro, Francesco. 2012. Diritto ecclesiastico, updated by Adrea Bettetini and Gaetano Lo Castro. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Fiorentino, Sonia. 2006. Gli enti ecclesiastici e il divieto di discriminazione. In Nozioni di diritto ecclesiastico, ed. Giuseppe Casuscelli, 57–68. Torino: Giappichelli.
Floris, Pierangela. 1981. Ateismo e religione nell’ambito del diritto di libertà religiosa. Il Foro it I: 5.
———. 2010. Laicità e collaborazione a livello locale. Gli equilibri tra fonti centrali e periferiche nella disciplina del fenomeno religioso. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale. http://www.statoechiese.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326. Last accessed 25 May 2019.
Garelli, Franco. 2014. Religion Italian style. Continuities and changes in a Catholic country. Farnham: Ashgate.
Harting, Hannah. 2018. Nearly six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Pew Research Center, October 17.
Hirschl, Ran, and Ayelet Shachar. 2018. Competing orders? The challenge of religion to modern constitutionalism. The University of Chicago Law Review 85: 424–485.
Jamal, Arif A., and Jaclyn L. Neo. 2019. Religious pluralism and the challenge for secularism. Journal of Law, Religion and State 7: 1–12.
Jemolo, Carlo Arturo. 1971. Chiesa e Stato negli ultimi cento anni. Torino: Einaudi.
Laneve, Giuseppe. 2020. Atheism as part of religious phenomenon: Questions and new challenges to secularism. Federalismi.it 25: 154–181.
Lefebvre, Solange. 2012. Religion in court, between an objective and a subjective definition. In Reasonable Accommodation. Managing religious diversity, ed. Lori L.G. Beaman, 32–51. Vancouver-Toronto: UBCPress.
Mancini, Susanna, and Michel Rosenfeld. 2014. Introduction. In Constitutional secularism in an age of religious revival, ed. Susanna Mancini and Michel Rosenfeld, xvi–xxxi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Margiotta Broglio, Francesco. 1966. Italia e Santa Sede dalla grande guerra alla conciliazione. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Miller, Courtney. 2016. ‘Spiritual but not religious’: Rethinking the legal definition of religion. Virginia Law Review, 102 (3): 833–894.
Niose, David. 2012. Nonbeliever nation: The rise of secular Americans. New York: Palgrave.
Origone, Agostino. 1952. La libertà religiosa e l’ateismo. In Studi di diritto costituzionale in memoria di Luigi Rossi, 417–457. Milano: Giuffrè.
Pasquali Cerioli, Jlia 2020. “Senza D”. La campagna Uaar tra libertà di propaganda e divieto di discriminazioni. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale 9: 50–56. https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/statoechiese/article/view/13411. Last accessed 25 May 2019.
Payne, Alan. 2013. Redefining “Atheism” in America: What the United States could learn from Europe’s protection of atheists. Emory International Law Review 27: 663–703.
Pertici, Roberto. 2009. Chiesa e Stato in Italia. Dalla Grande Guerra al nuovo Concordato. Dibattiti storici in Parlamento. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Pew Research Center. 2018. Young adults around the world are less religious by several measures. https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/. Last accessed 16 Oct 2020.
Quack, Johannes, Schuh Cora, and Susanne Kind. 2019. The diversity of nonreligion: Normativities and contested relations. London: Routledge.
Randazzo, Barbara. 2008. Diversi ed eguali. Le confessioni religiose davanti alla legge. Milano: Giuffrè.
Ricca, Mario. 1996. Legge e Intesa con le confessioni religiose: sul dualismo tipicità-atipicità nella dinamica delle fonti. Torino: Giappichelli.
———. 2000. Art. 20 della Costituzione ed enti religiosi: anamnesi e prognosi di una norma “non inutile”. In Studi in onore di Francesco Finocchiaro, 1557–1580. Padova: CEDAM.
Ruffini, Francesco. 1924. Corso di diritto ecclesiastico. La libertà religiosa come diritto pubblico subiettivo. Torino: F.lli Bocca.
Ryan, T. Cragun, Kosmin Barry, Keysar Ariela, H. Hammer Joseph, and Nielsen Michael. 2012. On the receiving end: Discrimination toward the non-religious in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion 27 (1): 105–112.
Thiessen, Joel, and Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme. 2020. None of the above: Nonreligious identity in the US and Canada. New York: New York University Press.
Tozzi, Valerio. 2011. Le confessioni religiose senza intesa non esistono. In Aequitas sive Deus. Studi in onore di Rinaldo Bertolino, 1033–1055. Torino: Giappichelli.
Tribe, Laurence H. 1978. American constitutional law. New York: The Foundation Press.
Varnier, Giovanni Battista. 1995. La prospettiva pattizia. In Principio pattizio e realtà religiose minoritarie, ed. Valentino Parlato and Giovanni Battista Varnier, 8–13. Torino: Giappichelli.
Ventura, Marco. 2014. Creduli e increduli. Il declino di Stato e Chiesa come questione di fede. Torino: Einaudi.
Witham, Larry. 2010. Marketplace of the Gods. How economics explains religion, 156–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woodhead, Linda, and Andrew Brown. 2016. That was the church that was: How the church of England lost the English people. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Yang, Fenggang. 2018. Religion in the global east: Challenges and opportunities for the social scientific study of religion. Religions 9 (305): 1–10.
Zurlo, Gina, and Todd M. Johnson. 2016. Unaffiliated, yet religious: A methodological demographic analysis. In Sociology of atheism, Annual review of the sociology of religion, ed. Roberto Cipriani and Franco Garelli, 50–75. Leiden: Brill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alicino, F. (2022). Can Militant Atheism Shape the Legal System?. In: Zwilling, AL., Årsheim, H. (eds) Nonreligion in Late Modern Societies. Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92395-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92395-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92394-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92395-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)