The purpose of the thesis is to analyze the arguments presented by the Center party (Centerpartiet) and the Moderate party (Moderaterna) in two motions regarding a ban on male circumcision. The public discussion about non-medical male circumcision surfaced in the autumn of 2019, when the Center party decided to strive a ban on male circumcision during their congress meeting. The study's questions were: What arguments are used to legislate a ban on male circumcision? How can the motions be understood as a form of politicization of religion? Is religion portrayed as an object or subject? Is religion presented as a resource or a problem? Using qualitative argumentation analysis, the content of two motions, one from the Center Party and one from the Moderates, as well as opinions on these motions from district boards, federal boards and party leaders, were examined and analyzed based on the theory politicization of religion. The results showed that religion was mainly presented as an object, meaning religion was referred to but there was no dialogue with religious leaders, figures or communities. Based on the analysis, religion was presented both as a resource and a problem, however it was more frequently presented as a problem than as a resource.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-432144 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Johansson, Linda |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Religionsbeteendevetenskap |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds