scholarly journals Barns rett til religionsfrihet

Prismet ◽  
1970 ◽  
pp. 273-287
Author(s):  
Rune Øystese
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Children And Parents ◽  
The Right

This article discusses whether there is a tension between granting children freedom of religion and giving the parents the right to decide over the upbringing of their children. It presents what Norwegian law, which has incorporated several UN Human Rights conventions, has to say about this. It also discusses whether the interpretation presented can be in the best interest of the child. The last part addresses how parents can give their children a sound religious upbringing and still give them the freedom to choose their own faith.Keywords: Rights of children and parents, Religious freedom, Religious upbringingNøkkelord: Barn og foreldres rettigheter, religiøs frihet, religiøs oppdragelse,

scholarly journals Framework of communication needed to protect against human rights violations of individuals who exercise their right to religious freedom in minority religions

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanus P. Pretorius
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
World Peace ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
International Level ◽  
Minority Religions ◽  
Religious Intolerance ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The right to religious freedom is generally believed to be the solution to religious intolerance and discrimination and to ensure world peace amongst world citizens. On an international level, the United Nations, through the appointment of a special rapporteur for freedom of religion and belief, has introduced a tool to monitor violations of this right. This tool is known as �the framework of communications� and is focused mainly on the relationship between governments and religions. Unfortunately, religion is not excluded from the violation of human rights within its own ranks. This article pointed out that however pure the intention of freedom of religion, no real measures are in place to address violations of human rights in minority religions. Therefore, a tool is needed to investigate and address alleged violations within minority religions.

scholarly journals Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Well Being ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Religious Expression ◽  
European Court ◽  
Religious Extremism ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right

The right to freedom of religion, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights has been frequently tested, both in UK courts and in the European Court of Human Rights, where successive decisions over a number of years led to the establishment of several well-known principles. However, in recent years religious extremism has brought into focus a tension between the right of freedom of religious expression and the well-being of individuals (not least children) and society. The Strasbourg court requires neutrality on the part of the state and its courts. However, unlike the European Court of Human Rights, the domestic courts have had to face situations where religious observance can be seen to be causing serious harm and where interference in religious freedom and family life has been shown to be justified.

scholarly journals Religious freedom as a universal value

2019 ◽  
pp. 18-22
Author(s):  
Natalia Kutuzova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
The Right

The article substantiates the universal value of religious freedom, based on the fundamental human right to freedom of religion and belief. Referring to the relevant international documents, the author reveals the content of the concept of "religious freedom" and concludes that there are two basic values at the heart of human rights: human dignity and equality. Only a systematic approach to freedom of religion in the human rights complex gives them universal value. There are two components to freedom of religion (belief): freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the right to profess one's religion or belief. Religious freedom has both a universal and a private dimension. Being secular in nature, freedom of religion is especially evident in modern societies, which secularity and inclusivity empowers people to decide for themselves about their religiosity. The article deals with the restrictions that exist for religious freedom. Often the right to practice one's religion comes into conflict with different rights of other people. The protection of these rights must come from the principles of non-discrimination, neutrality and impartiality, respect for the right to religion, pluralism and tolerance, institutional and personal autonomy, lack of a hierarchy of human rights. The article argues that religious freedom is a universal value and right in the human rights complex.

Places of Worship

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-310
Author(s):  
Noel Villaroman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
Structural Requirement ◽  
International Standard ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conceptual Core

The present paper analyzes the substance of the right to establish and maintain places of worship in order to reveal the elements that make up its conceptual core. First, the process of international standard-setting in human rights is explained, in particular the important contribution of the un Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief to standard-setting. Second, the paper summarizes the outcomes of the standard-setting activities of the un Human Rights Committee and of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief with respect to places of worship. The analysis demonstrates the significance of the right to establish and maintain places of worship − a key religious freedom norm which aims to ensure that the structural requirement of religious freedom is adequately met.

scholarly journals Pandangan Mufasir Indonesia Terhadap Isu-Isu Hak Asasi Manusia

MUTAWATIR ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-213
Author(s):  
Ahmad Mujahid
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Rights Issues

This article argues that the attitude of Indonesian mufassir is not always parallel in respond to the concept of Human Rights. This is shown from our discussion of three contextual issues in human rights: freedom of religion, freedom to find a mate, and death sentence, which are exemplified by comparing to the three Indonesian mufassir: Hamka’s Tafsir al-Azhar, Hasbi ash-Shiddieqy’s Tafsir al-Nur and Tafsir al-Bayan, and Quraish Shihab’s Tafsir Al-Mishbah. The article concludes: First, in respond to the human rights issues, Indonesian commentators tend to be responsive. All three exegetes denied those who claimed that Islam was spread with violence and those who opposed the death penalty. Second, on the relationship between human rights and Islam, the commentators have similarities and differences with human rights. Among these similarities, for example, is the issue of religious freedom. As for the issue of freedom to choose a mate and a death sentence, they are taking a different position from human rights. On the issue of death penalty, the commentators emphasize to not only looking from the side of the killer, but also from the right of the murder.

scholarly journals APOSTASY: IS IT HUMAN RIGHTS OR/AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 208-215
Author(s):  
Adibah Sulaiman ◽  
◽  
Md Yazid Ahmad ◽  
Mohd Azmir Mohd Nizah ◽  
Ezad Azraai Jamsari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The West ◽  
Freedom Of Belief ◽  
The Right

This study investigates the issue of apostasy or riddahor as a human right to freedom of religion or belief, especially among the Muslims. The purpose is to examine the question of whether apostasy should be recognized by modern Muslim states and societies as a human right that must be guaranteed for their citizens. Or, should it strictly be denied, thus freedom of religion or belief should not be extended to apostasy for Muslims and Muslim converts? The method used to complete the study is historical research and content analysis. This study showed that the call for recognition of apostasy as a human right is indeed influenced by the West which extremely enjoys freedom of belief or religion. As for Islam, apostasy is indeed contradictory with its teachings. This article is meaningful as it highlights the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR) which speaks on religious freedom with limitations. UIDHR invariably attempts to match the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that recognizes the right to believe in whatever men want or to change their religion as they wish, at any time.

Contemporary Thinking on Conversion and Persecution: A Survey of Recent Missiological Compendia

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-308
Author(s):  
Christof Sauer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Christian Mission ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
Freedom Of Belief ◽  
State Of Research ◽  
The Right

Abstract This essay surveys the state of research regarding the ample relations between conversion and persecution as reflected in two recent missiological collections of essays, namely Freedom of Belief and Christian Mission (2015), and Sorrow and Blood: Christian Mission in Contexts of Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom (2012). The systematic categories emanate from examining conversion as a human right in the framework of freedom of religion or belief, with the guidance of the un Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The essay covers missiological reflection on the right to convert; not to be forced to convert; and to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion. It also discovers a lack of reflection on the rights of the child and of his or her parents in this regard. This is done against the background of the challenges to the enjoyment of these rights in various contexts and from multiple parties, often taking the form of harassment, discrimination or persecution. It becomes evident that a Christian theological and missiological perspective adds important further considerations to the human rights perspective on conversion and religious freedom or persecution.

scholarly journals Equal Liberty – Questioning the Right to Freedom of Religion?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 283-301
Author(s):  
Irene Klissenbauer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Systems

Abstract This paper tackles the question of how to handle the phenomenon of “religion” by widely secularized judicial systems by analyzing the “Equal Liberty”-concept from legal scholars Eisgruber and Sager. While they assume that everything worth protecting is already covered by existing anti-discrimination laws, freedom of expression and association, and judge the right to religious freedom as itself discriminatory, this paper considers how this right can be part of an emancipatory human rights approach, which helps us think beyond an antagonistic relationship between religious freedom and other human rights.

scholarly journals The right to freedom of religion and the right against religious discrimination: Theoretical distinctions

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1125-1145
Author(s):  
Tarunabh Khaitan ◽  
Jane Calderwood Norton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Group ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
The Right ◽  
Material Advantage

Abstract This article argues that while they are often conflated, the right to freedom of religion and the right against religious discrimination are in fact distinct human rights. Religious freedom is best understood as protecting our interest in religious adherence (and non-adherence), understood from the committed perspective of the (non)adherent. This internal, committed perspective generates a capacious and realistic conception of religious adherence, which reflects the staggering plurality of forms of religiosity (or lack thereof) as extant in contemporary societies. The right against religious discrimination is best understood as protecting our non-committal interest in the unsaddled membership of our religious group. Thus understood, the two rights have distinct normative rationales. Religious freedom is justified by the need to respect our decisional autonomy in matters of religious adherence. The prohibition on religious discrimination is justified by the need to reduce any significant (political, sociocultural, or material) advantage gaps between different religious groups. These differences reveal a complex map of two overlapping, but conceptually distinct, human rights which are not necessarily breached simultaneously.

Responses to Offensive Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-78
Author(s):  
Nicholas Hatzis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Offensive Speech

This chapter discusses whether there is a non-religious justification for limiting religiously offensive speech. The most commonly used argument is that the right to freedom of religion includes a more specific right to be protected from offence to one’s religious sensibilities. If this is correct, it provides a non-religious reason for censorship: even those who are hostile to religion can accept that religious freedom is an important right and that the government is justified in giving effect to rights. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly upheld restrictions on expression which insults religious feelings, reasoning that religious freedom, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, protects the religious sensibilities of believers from offence. I suggest that this interpretation is mistaken. After exploring how rights give rise to claims, I argue that there is no right-based claim to be protected from the unpleasant feelings caused by religious insults. Therefore, it is unpersuasive to describe cases of religious offence as involving the conflict of two fundamental rights—speech and religion—which require a balancing exercise to decide which one will prevail each time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document